ML20138J040
| ML20138J040 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1985 |
| From: | Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Johnson W, Rosenthal A, Wilber H NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#485-512 OL, NUDOCS 8512170417 | |
| Download: ML20138J040 (2) | |
Text
h(L i
a ver 4
%g UNITED STATES y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
4 n
- y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
...../
December 12, 1985 u y;.v
'85 DEC 16 PI2:52 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Howard A. Wilberap Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safet)PTndiLic' ens....f rig [ Appeal ' Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.NuclearRegul%WsyfCommission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatgry. Commission Washington, DC 20555 In the Matter of CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL.
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-440 OL, 50-441 OL
Dear Members of the Appeal Board:
Enclosed is a corrected page 33 to the NRC Staff Response To Appeals Filed By Ohio Citizens For Responsible Energy and By Sunflower Alliance, Inc. Of The Concluding Partial-Initial Decision On Issues #1, #8, and #16 and Six Prior Decisions.
Sincerely, h e:
(W Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enc 1: Service List
~
8512170417 851212 PDR ADOCK 05000440 0
PDR bO)
1 y
\\
x i
1 s
s necessarily legal error, the PID notes OCRE's opinion that inadequate margins were used by the APTFr4 Company and concludes this is merely an argument with experts. PID at 31. OCRE's difference of opinion with the expert witnesses is not evidence which could properly be considered.
Consequently, this assertion is not material.
OCRE asserts that the decision " avoided" the issue of containment spray availability and claims that its Exhibits E l provide evidence in this regardwhichwasnothonsideredbytheBoard. OCRE Brief at 20. The decisit r did-consider 0CRE's Exhibit 21 but found it contained no evidence indica't'ing that containment spray would not be available.
PIO 'at 43. More importantly ~, the Board rejected OCRE's argument that containment spray unavailability during a degraded core accident is shown by Applicants' hypothetical assumption of LPSI coolant unavailability, necessary to analytically produce a degraded core in the computer model. PID p. 44.
OCRE essentially complains the Board did:I include the containment spray in the scope of Issue 8.
However, is e y t ied by the Board, the hydrogen control system does not include the containment spray, and this subject should have been raised by a separate contention. PID at 44.
t OCRE also asserts error in the decision because the Board did not accept OCRE's arguments about'other systems and scenarios. OCRE Brief at 20. OCRE explains it did not intend to litigate the adequacy of the containment spray and RHR systems but only " wished to examine the conservatisms" in Applicants' containment response analysis. Brief at 20.
.However, the Board explained that the hydrogen control rule is not a vehicle g/.OCREEx.19(p.4),Ex.21,(pp.12,94).
<