ML20136F366
| ML20136F366 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 01/02/1986 |
| From: | Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136F370 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#186-670 OL, NUDOCS 8601070361 | |
| Download: ML20136F366 (22) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ttilSSION 08,,g{Q BEFORE THE ATOMIC RAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAf8$0ARD f g P2:23 In the Matter of )
)
hhh 9yhpf yo y,,
&SEi'vh,
- CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Docket No.~50 '440 OL COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441 OL e (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD FILED BY OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY I. INTRODUCTION On December 12, 1985 Chio Citizens for Responsible Energy (0CRE) filed a motion (Potion) to reopen the record in this proceeding to admit six contentions for litication. The motion to reopen and proffered contentions involve (a) deletion of the fire protection program from the technical specifications in the proposed license for the Perry Nuclear
. Power Plant (PNPP) and (b) Applicants' request for approval of PPPP operation using only one recirculation loop under certain conditions.
'O The NRC Staff (Staff) opposes 0CRE's Motion for the reasons explained below.
II. BACKGROUND The Concluding Partial Initial Decision (PID) addressing three issues litigated at hearings held during April and May, 1985 was issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on September 4,1985. Appeals 8601070361 860102 gDR ADOCK 05000440 PDR 35 d
of the PID and six other decisions were filed by both intervenors, OCRE and Sunflower Alliance, in late October 1985. Responses to the appeals were filed by Applicants and NRC Staff in late November and early December, respectively. The appeals are presently pending before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (Appeal Board). OCRE's motion to reopen the record was, therefore, appropriately filed with the Appeal Eoard.
OCRE explains two reasons for its reouest to reopen the record to cdmit the contentions proposed in the Motion. OCRE states that on Povember 19, 1985 the NRC Staff notified the Applicants of an intent to l delete fire protection requirements from the technical specifications being prepared for the low power license for PNPP, Unit 1, and by letter dated November 29, 19P5 1/ the Staff confirmed the deletion. Motion, at 1.
OCRE esserts that 10 CFR 950.3E(c)(2) requires the Technical Specifica-tions to include the fire protection requirements and submits a conten-tion (Contention A) alleging that deletion of the fire protection Tech-nical Specifications violates the Commission's regulation. Motion, at 1-2. In this portion of the Motion, OCRE refers to Staff's request that Applicants incorporate the requirements of the fire protection procram for PNPP, Unit 1, into the FSAR, in accord with recent Commission direction. In contrast to prior practice for other operating licenses, specific fire protection requirements would not be set out in the
~
1/ Both the November 19, 1985 and November 29, 1985 letters are attached to OCRE's Motion. The November 29, 1985 letter (Butler to Edelman) indicates that the fire protection program requirements were incorporated into the FSAR.
technical specifications in the Perry operating license but, instead, would be embodied in the FSAR. The low power license for PNPP, which may be issued in mid-January, 1986, will contain a license condition requir-ing compliance with the fire protection requirements in the FSAR for PNPP. It is this action of transferring fire protection requirements from the license technical specifications to the FSAR and imposing the
, FSAR " requirements" by license condition which OCRE opposes in Conten-tior. A.
OCRE further states that Applicants, on November 20, 1985 2/
submitted FSAR Amendment 22 in support of plant operation up to 70% power with a single recirculation loop, which mode of operation OCRE opposes.
Motion, p. P. OCRE describes five issues (Contentions B-1 to B-5) it wishes admitted for litigation concerning possible risks associated with single loop operation. Motion, pp. 2-6. The Applicants request for approval of single loop operation has not been reviewed by the Staff and the technical specifications prepared for the PNPP low power license do not permit this mode of operation.
-2/ The applicants actually requested approval of single loop operation by letter dated October 28, 1985.
III. DISCUSSION To prevail, OCRE must demonstrate that reopening is warranted, that the five factors concerning late contentions balance in favor of
' admission, 3_/ and that the contentions themselves are admissible.
A. Reopening the Record
- 1. Standards for Reopening
. A party seeking to reopen the record must demonstrate that (1) the request to reopen the record is timely, (2) the request raises a significant safety (or environmental) matter, and (3) a different result might have been reached had the newly proffered material been considered initially. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-598, 11 NRC 876, 879 (1980). The movant bears a heavy burden in this regard. Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-469, 7 NRC 320, 338 (1978). Rare allegations or the simple submission of new contentions is not sufficient. Pacific eas r & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361, 363 (1981). As the Appeal Board has made clear,
. [a]t a minimum, the new material in support of a motion to reopen must be set forth with a degree of particilarity in excess of the basis and specificity reouirements contained in 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b) for admissilbe contentions. Such supporting information must be more than mere allegations; it must be tantamount to evidence.
And, if such evidence is to affect materially the previous decision (as required by the Commission), it must possess the attributes set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.743(c) defining admissible evidence for
-3/ Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-82-39, 16 NRC 1712, 1714-15 (1982).
adjudicatory proceedings. Specifically, the new eviden themotionmustbe"revelant, material,andreliable."gsupporting It is against these standards, that OCRE's motion must be judged
- 2. OCRE's Motion to Pencen OCRE asserts its motion is timely due to the recent dates of the letters indicating deletion of fire protection requirements from the
, technical specifications and the FSAP amendment concerning single loop operation. Motion, p. 7. OCRE asserts that the motion raises significant issues and could cause a different result to be reached because Contention A raises an issue of compliance with the regulations and Contentions B-1 through B-5 raise significant safety issues. Motion p 7. OCRE states, without elaboration, that the Licensing Board very likely would have reached a different result in its decision had the Applicants' plans been known. M. OCRE also points out that if the documents concerning the changes to the technical specifications and FSAR had been filed prior to close of the record below, or after issuance of an operating license (when a license amendment would be necessary to effect the changes and a consequent opportunity for hearing would be afforded), OCRE would not have had to meet the standards for reopening.
4/
~
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-775, 19 NRC 1361, 1366-67 (1984) (footnote omitted). Tne Appeal Board also commented: "In other words, only facts raising a significant safety issue, not conjecture or speculation, can support a reopening motion. The facts must be relevant to the proposition they support, and probative of the safety issue presented. General statements are of no value.
Similarly, although hearsay may be admissible in NRC proceedings, it must be shown to be reliable if it is to be considered as support for the motion." M.at1367,n.18.
OCRE also relies on Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 F. 2d 1437, 1444 (D.C. Cir 1984) for the proposition that an opportunity to reopen the record to admit issues is not the equivalent of an opportunity for hearing in the first instance. El Motion pp 7-8.
Despite OCRE's intimations to the contrary, there is no basis on which to apply anything other than the traditional and well-established reopening standards in judging whether reopening is warranted here. In that regard, the Staff bclieves that OCRE's motion, while timely, fails to raise significant new safety issues which might affect the Licensing Board's overall decision.
- 3. The Proposed Contentions Do Not Raise a Significant Issue of Safety and Would Not Have Affected the Licensing Board's Decision
- a. Contention A Contention A states:
Contrary to 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2), the Perry Unit 1 Technical Specifications do not contain limiting conditions for operation for fire protection equipment.
OCRE's claim that fire protection requirements are encompassed by the requirements in 10 CFR Q50.36 is simply mistaken. 5/ This regulation requires applicants to develop technical specifications for those safety
-5/ If the FSA9 had contained the recent amendment 22 information some months earlier and prior to the close of the evidentiary record, OCPE indeed would only have had to have met the 10 CFR 62.714 late-filing criteria and admissibility standards. However, it appears doubtful to Staff that 0CRE has met even the more limited admissibility standards as discusred infra.
~~6/ It should be noted that fire protection evaluations are located in the section entitled "auxilliary systems" in the PNPP SER. as in SERs for all plants.
. - . - ~ - - -
limits, limiting safety system settings and limiting control settings necessary to protect the integrity of certain physical barriers which guard against uncontrolled release of radioactivity and limiting conditions of operation required for safe operation. 10 CFR 550.36(c)(1) and(2). Although fire protection requirements have been included in the technical specifications of other licenses, the Comission has not included fire protection equipment in the class of equipment reovired for proventing release of radioactivity and for safe operation for which technical. specifications are mandatory. Moreover, the Comission's 1982 proposed modification of 6 E0.% states an intention to categorize fire protection and some other requirements, as " supplemental specifica-tions" which would be contained in the FSAR and made binding by a license cordition (47 FR 13369, attached). More recently, the Chairman approved the Staff's generic recommendation concerning deletion of fire protection technical specifications and urged the Staff to include in licenses a license condition requiring compliance with the fire protection program, with modifications made to the program according to procedures described in 10 CFR 650.59. (See: SECY-85-306, and Staff Requirements Memorandum cfNovember6,1985, attached). The low power license being prepared for PNPP, Unit I contains such a license condition and is consistent with the Chairman's recommendation and the Staff Requirements Memorandum. Contrary to DCRE's assertion, deletion of fire protection requirements from the technical specifications of the license for PNPP does not in any way violate 10 CFR 6 50.36. Since, in fact, fire protection requirements will j- still be imposed for PNPP despite their absence from the technical spec.ifications, OCRE's complaint is essentially with the method for
imposing those requirements and the format for the license. That is not the sort of significant safety issue that would warrant reopening the record.
The fire protection requirements in the FSAR for PNPP will be made binding and enforceable by means of a license condition. Since there will be r.o change in enforceability, deletion of fire protection requirements from the technical specifications could not have affected the outcome of the Licensino Board's decision authori?'.3 iiccnsing.
Consequently, OCRE's motion to reopen the record on the basis of deletion of fire protection requirements from the propcsed technical specifica-tions for PNPP is without merit,
- b. Contention 8 As previously stated, Applicants' request and supporting analysis for sinole loop operation were submitted in late October, 1985.
Subsequently, in late November, Applicants submitted an FSAR amendment cortaining the supporting analysis for single loop operation. However, the technical specifications prepared for the low pcwer Itcense 1/ do not permit single loop operation. The Staff has not evaluated the reoucst, nor reached a conclusion on its merits. In the event that the Staff ultimately were to approve the request for one loop operation at Z/ As previously stated, the low power license for PNPP, Unit I may be issued in mid-January, 1986.
PNPP,SI only the full power operating license would reflect this mode of operation; no change will be made to the low power license. In any event, OCRE's motion to reopen with regard to single loop operation is clearly timely and has preceeded the Staff's own detailed technical evciuation of Applicant's request.
Applicants' request for single loop operation (SLO) involves a sig-nificant safety issue per se since special authorization for this mode of operation must be obtained and specific technical specifications must be imposed to carefully control and limit this type of operation. Thus, initially it may appear that if the matter of single loop operation properly had been raised as an issue with the Licensing Board, it might have affected the decision authorizing full power operation. However, forthereasonsdiscussedbelowandintheattachedaffidavit,El OCRE's contentions do not raise significant safety issues concerning single loop operation.
Contention B-1 states:
Applicants should analyze the prooression and consequences of an
- anticipated transient without scram ("ATWS") initiated by the inadvertent startup of the idle recirculation loop when operating at 70% of rated thermal power with single loop operation. The analysis should demonstrate that this event will meet the safety criteria outlined in Section 15C 3 of the FSAR.
g/ The Staff has denied similar requests for some plants and granted others.
9] Joint Affidavit of Laurence E. Phillips and George Thomas Concerning Single Loo Affidavit)p Operation Contentions Raised by "0CRE" (Staff
/
OCRE. asserts that if the idle recirculation loop inadvertently comes into service, a positive reactivity insertion followed by scram will result. OCRE states that it is not clear what the consequences would be if a scram fails (creating an ATWS event), and asserts that Applicants
, should analyze the possible consequences. Motion, p. 3.
Clearly this contention is mere speculation about a possible series of events, including an ATWS, which does not even allege the existence of a significant safety issue. Rather, OCRE simply speculates that there might be a safety question. Such speculation falls far short of the required specific information with the attributes of admissible evidence needed to support reopening. Diablo Canyon, ALAB-775, supra,19 NRC at 1367. Contention B-1, therefore, does not provide a basis for reopening the record. Moreover, the contention appears to challenge the sufficiency of 10 CFR 550.6? which the Commission issued to bound ATWS events. (Staff Affidavit, 1 2). Absent the granting of a waiver based on the required showing of special circumstances (see 10 CFR 9 2.758(b)),
which OCRE has not even attempted to make, such a challenge to a Commission regulation is prohibited. 10 CFR 5 2.758(a).
Contention B-2 states:
Applicants have not demonstrated that the seizure of the operating recirculation pump when operating up to 70% of rated thermal power with a single loop will not exceed fuel safety limits, assuming scram functions, and that ATWS initiated by this event will meet the safety criteria of FSAR Section 15C.3.
Again OCRE speculates about an ATWS event, E and bases this contention primarily on OCRE's inability to determine whether pump seizure was analyzed by Applicants for one or two pumps. Motion, p. 4 However, OCRE goes on to assert that reduction in coolant would occur from purrp seizure during single loop operation, resulting in steam blanketing of the fuel and possible fuel damage. The basis for this
. assertion is a book entitled "The Accident Hazards of Nuclear Power Plants", University of Passachusetts Press, 1976, which discusses steam blanketing during two-loop operation. OCRE also asserts that pump seizure would force the reactor into natural circulation creating an
" unstable" high power-low flow mode. The basis for this latter assertion is an NRC Staff Poard Notification describing oscillations in foreign reactors during two loop operation. The Board Notification questioned violation of critical heat flux limits by high power scram if the oscillations occur, even thounh the foreign reactors' control rod insertions suppressed the oscillations. Motion, pp. 4-5. Nevertheless OCRE raises a question of scram failure if such oscillations occur but provides no explanation of why scram failure would occur. Contention B-2
. essentially states that Applicants should analyze this hypothetical ATWS event.
As reflected 'n the Staff Affidavit, pump seizure during single loop operation has been analyzed on a generic basis and that analysis 10/ The interpretation of the Commission's rule to address possible anticipated transients without scram (ATWS), 10 CFR 550.62(c)(4) (49 (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
demonstrates that steam blanketing and fuel damage would not occur.
(Staff Affidavit,16). Moreover, the technical specifications for SLO, if approved, will account for the oscillations described in the Board flot i fica tion. (Staff affidavit, f 7). OCRE's speculation and arguments regarding this contention are, therefore, baseless. Finally, OCRE once again postulates an ATWS event by adding scram failure to the oscillatiens described in the Board Notification. Because of the low probability of occurrence of any recirculation pump rotor seizure, a failure to scram in addition to recirculation pump rotor seizure need not be considered. (Staff Affidavit,18). Contention B-2, therefore, fails to raise a significant safety issue. Jd. Contention B-2, thus, is not sufficient to meet the standards for reopening the record, as set out in ALAP-775.
Contention B-3 states:
Applicants have not demonstrated that the traversing incore probe
("TIP") noise uncertainty values reported in FSAR Section 15.F.2.?
are applicable to single loop operation up to 70% of rated thermal power; consecuently, the minimum critical power ratio ("MCPR") may not be determined in a conservative fashion.
The only question raised by this contenton is whether Applicants' analysis of TIP noise at 59.3',' power (rather than 70% power) is conservative. OCRE again asserts, without explanation or documentary support, that Applicants should do further analysis, yet does not even (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
Fed. Re2 26038), was challenged by OCRE before the Licensing Board and is now the subject of appeal. See: Appellate Brief of Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, served October 21, 1985, p. 33.
allege that a serious safety issue is involved. Motion, p. 5. As stated in the Staff Affidavit, this matter will be addressed u technical specifications for single loop operation, but, in any event, it does not raise a significant safety Question since the incremental increase in TIP noise does not affect MCPR safety limits. (Staff affidavit 15 12, 14.)
Consequently Contention B-3 is not sufficient to meet the standards for reopening the record.
Contention B-4 states:
Applicants' Technical Specifications for single loop operation up to 707 of rated thermal power should include limits on the core plate pressure drop.
OCRE asserts in support of this contention that limits on the core plate pressure drop would better regulate core flow and would be consistent with limits imposed on other BWRs, citing the Cooper Nuclear Station technical specifications. Motion, pp. 5-6. However, as indicated by the Staff affidavit (116), the technical specifications will indeed include limits on core plate pressure drop. Therefore, no issue is raiseo by this contention. Instead, it merely reflects the fact that appropriate technical specifications have not yet been submitted and approved. OCRE's Centention 6-4 is clearly inadequate to meet the standard for reopening the record, since it does not raise a significant safety issue.
Contention B-5 states:
Applicants have not demonstrated that single loop operation up to 70% of rated thermal pcwer will not aggravate the strong variability in flow rate along the fuel channel seen in fast BWR transients, or that this phenomenon has been conservatively accounted for in analyses of fast transients.
OCRE refers to " Transactions of the American Nuclear Society",
Vol. 33, pp. 476-77 (Noverrber 1979) as a basis for this contention.
However, OCRE's description of this article does not suggest a serious concern, but merely uncertainty about non-uniform flow rates through the core. Motion, p. 6. OCRE does not describe how, or even allege that, a serious cuestion of safe reactor operation is raised by this contention,
- but merely suggests a method of evaluation not used or reviewed by Staff.
(Staff Affidavit i 18). In fact, transients during single loop operation are considerably less severe'than during two loop operation. (Staff Affidavit, t 19). Consequently, there is no significant safety issue raised by this Contention, and therefore it does not suffice to reopen the record.
As explained in the Staff's affidavit, the issues raised by OCRE's Cententions B-1 to 8-5 do net reflect significant safety issues. OCRE's contentions either raise no safety issue at all because they concern natters which will be addressed in technicsl specifications not yet tpproved (Contentions B-2, P 1, B-4), raise ATWS issues beyond the re-quirements of 10 CFP Q 50.62 (B-1, B-2), or assert that certain studies 1
. shculd be performed, which in fact, have been done (Contentions B-2, B-5).
Consequently, although the Applicants' request for single loop operation has not yet been reviewed by Staff, the proposed contentions submitted by OCRE are not significant safety issues which could have affected the Licensing Board's decision authorizing full power licensing. For this reason, OCRE has f611ed to meet the established standards for reopening
! the re:Ord on the tratter of single loop operation at PNPP.
B. Late-Filed Contentions A party seeking to reopen a closed record to litigate new contentions must demonstrate not only that reopening is warranted, but also that the factors on nontimely filings weigh in favor of admission of the new contentions. EI Such a demonstration is required even where, as here, the new contentions are based on previously unavailable infonnation and could not have been raised earlier. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041 (1983).
- 1. OCRE's Showing On The Late-Filing Factors OCRF asserts good cause for late filing regarding factor (i) based on the timeliness of the motion and points to the impossibility of earlier filing. OCRE states that facter (ii) weighs in its favor since there is no other meaningful way to protect its interest except the procedure in 10 CFR 6 2.206 which OCRE states is rarely successful.
Motion, p. 8. As to factor (iii), OCRE refers to its previous participa-tion in this proceeding to demonstrate that OCRE is capable of making a significant contribution to the record by cross-examination and proffer-ing dncumentary evidence. OCRE states in regard to factor (iv) that no M/ Those factors are:
(i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time; (ii) the availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected; (iii)the extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record; (iv) the extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties; and (v) the extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. 10 CFR 9 2.714(a)(1).
i
/
other party will represent its interest. OCRE also asserts that factor (v) is favorable to OCRE because OCRE will filo, a motion for sumary dispost-tion of Contention A, causing little delay in the proceeding, an.d the admission of Contentions B-1 to B-5, while causing delay in the proceed-ing, will not delay the licensing and operation of PNPP except in the single Icop mode. Motion, p. 9. OCRE concludes that all five factors weigh in favor of admitting the late filed contentions. The Staff agrees for the most part.
- 2. The Standards for Late-Filec contentions IIeigh In'0CRE's Favor Factor (i)
In general, each of -lCRE's new contentions involve matters that have only recently arisen. The question of the licensing format for fire protection requirements which is the subject of OCRE's new Contention A appears to have first arisen for PNPP in,the Staff's November 19, 1985 notification of its intent to refrain from putting specific fire protec-tion requirements in the technical specifications. The request for authcrization of single loop operation which purpnrts to be the subject of OCRE's new Contentions 8-1 to B-5 was first filed by Applicants in a letter dated October 28, 1985. There is no apparent basis on which OCRE might have raised its new contentions prior to these times and OCRE appears to have acted in a reasonably timely manner after the bases for raising these new contentions arose. OCRE has good cause for its late-filed contentions and factor (i) favers admission of the contentions.
Factors (ii) and (iv)
As is often the case, there are no obvious other means whereby OCPE's interests in fire protection and Perry single loop operation will be protected (factor (ii)) and no other parties who will appropriately represent OCRE's interests (factor (iv)). These factors thus favor admissior. of the contentions.
Factor (iii)
The Staff aprees with OCRE's assertion that OCRE's participa-tien in the Spring 1985 hearings in this proceeding demonstrated its ability to cross-examine witnesses on complex subjects and thus assist in developing the record. OCRE was generally well-prepared for hearing and its questioning did tend to make for a fairly full record. Apart from its potential contribution through cross-examination, however, OCRE has not particularized any affirmative contribution it might make through the presentation of direct evidence on its proffered contentions. See Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2),
ALAB-704, 16 NRC 1725, 1730 (1982). In these circumstances, factor (iii)
. only slightly favors admissier. of the contentions.
Factor (v)
Since there are currently no issues on fire protection or Perry single loop operation admitted for litigation and no scheduled hearing yet to be undertaken, admission of OCRE's proffered contentions obviously would broaden the issues for litigati r and delay the completion of the PNPP operating license proceeding. On the other hand, admission of these contentions for litigation will not necessarily delay the issuance
of a license for PNPP, Unit 1. 12/ Factor (v) weighs against admission of these contentions, but not decisively so.
In sum, OCRE has shown good cause for the timing of its new contentions, there are no other means to protect OCRE's interests and no other perties to appropriately represent those interests. In the same vein, OCRE has shown some ability to contribute to the development of the
. record. In contrast, OCRE's new contentions will broaden the issues and delay the proceeding to some extent. On balance, however, these factors weigh in favor of admitting OCRE's new contentions insofar as the late-filirg criteria are concerred. The question as to whether the proffered cententions are otherwise admissible is another matter.
C. Admissibility of Contentions OCRE Has Not Submitted Litigable Issues As described above, OCRE has not met its burden of establishing that the Commission's standards for reopening a record are satisfied. Even if the issues raised by OCRE's motion did meet the reopening standards, however, OCRE has failed to submit a litigable contention. As discussed below, each of OCRE's six proposed contentions fails to meet the
~~1?/ The Staff intends to issue the low power license for Perry Unit 1 upon making the necessary findings on uncontested issues. Pursuant to 10 CFR 6 2.717(b) and subject to possible modification by the Board, the low power license will embody the new approach to imposing fire protection requirements without incorporating specific provisions into the technical specifications. The low pcwer license will not authorize the single loop operation requested by the Applicant.
s
standards for admissible contentions set out in 10 CFR Q2.714(b) and relevant interpretive decisions. El To be admissible, contentions must (a) be founded on reasonably specific bases, (b) sufficiently put other parties on notice as to the defense required, (c) be within the Comission's regulatory authority and processes, (d) be proper for adjudication in the particular proceed-ing and (c) concern a concrete issue. El At the very least the contention must apply to the facility at bar and be supported by sufficient founda-tion co warrant further exploration of the issue. E l At the operating license stage, since a hearing is not mandatory, it is important to determine that an issue clearly open to adjudication is raised. El Applying these standards to Centention A, it is evident that OCRE has not raised a litigable issue because OCPE misinterpreted 10 CFR 9 50.36 to include fire protection equipment, as previously discussed.
Thus, Contention A does not raise a genuine issue of compliance with the Comission's regulations and does not meet the standards for admission.
Applying the ! 2.714 standards to Contentions B-1 through B-5 produces the same result reached for Contention A. Contention B-1 merely asserts the possibility of a two-stage ATWS event with no assertion that
--13/ Foremost among the decisions interpreting the admissibility of contentions is Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, at 20-21.
14/ Id.; 10 CFR % 2.714 15/ Id.
---16/ Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. et al. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Stat' ion), ALAB-305, 3 NRC F Tl (1976).
1
. .. _ _ _ _ -_ . 1 . .
any risk to safety would result. No basis for further inquiry is provided. Moreover, this contenton actually concerns anticipated transients without scram (ATWS), encompassed by 10 CFR 6 50.62. However, OCRE does not suggest that PNPP does not comply with this regulation, but appears to challenge its sdequacy in a manner prohibited by 10 CFR
$ 2.758. Absent special circumstances, which OCRE has not shown, the Commission's regulations are not subject to challenge in adjudicatory proceedings. 10 CFR 2.758(a). In any event no genuine litigable issue is raised by Contention B-1.
Contention B-2 actually raises two questions regarding fuel safety limits in the event of pump seizure during single loop operation. The basis for postulating steam blanketing of fuel rods, however is a description of a transient during two-loop full power operation which OCRE mistakenly ascribes to one-loop operation. (See: Accident Hazards of Nuclear Plants.,pp.'30-32, attached.) Therefore, OCRE's issue is unsupported as to fuel darrage during one-loop operation. Since there is no basis provided by OCP.E for asserting this issue solely in regard to one loop operation, it does not meet the Q 2.714(b) standard requiring a
~
specific basis.
The second basis for this _ contention offered by 0CRE, similarly does not support the issue. As[reviouslystated,theBoardNotification described successful termination of power oscillations observed in foreign reactors by control rod insertion. OCRE speculates without basis that scram might fail and thus cause fuel damage. However, OCRE does not allege and there is no basis for believing that control rods could not be inserted. In sum, the bases referenced do not relate to risks associated
with single loop operation se that the contention consists of mere unsupported allegations of hypothetical events unrelated to single loop operation. Contention B-2 does not raise a litigable is ne concerning single loop operation and is lacking in basis.
Contention B-3 also has no basis. OCRE merely points to the Applicants' analysis of TIP noise at nearly 60% power (59.3%) and asks if this is sufficient for conservatively determining MCPR at 70% power.
This inquiry by OCRE does not constitute a specific basis for its proffered contention. Contention B-3, therefore, must be rejected.
Contention E-4 concerning a technical specification limit for single loop cperation is without basis except for a terse reference to the Cooper nuclear plant's technical specifications. OCRE provides no reason to believe the technical specifications for PNPP will be inadequate.
Moreover, this issue appears to support, rather than to oppose single-loop operation by implying that this mode of operation is acceptable if limits are imposed on core plate pressure drop. In any event, no genuine issue of safety is raised since the PNPP Unit I
- technical specifications will include appropriate limits on core plate pressure drop. Contention B-4, therefore, does not raise a litigable issue concerning safety of PNPP single loop operation.
Finally, in Contention B-5 0CRE refers to a document concerning BWR transients and speculates that single loop operation could aggravate this type of transient. This contention is mere speculation without a real, specific supporting basis. Lacking adequate basis, this contention should be rejected.
l
/
In sum, OCRE's contentions are not only inadeouate to support reopening the record, they also are not admissible for litigation.
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set out above, OCRE's motion to reopen the record to admit new contentions should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, Colleen P. k'codhead Counsel for NPC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 2nd day of January,1986.
9 l
i l
t