ML20148H969
| ML20148H969 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1988 |
| From: | Silberg J CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5413 OLA, NUDOCS 8801270339 | |
| Download: ML20148H969 (7) | |
Text
.. -
i' 00LKEiEO th T~.;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FULL Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board'ChCi ji
~i In the Matter of
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)
Docket No. 50-440 OLA ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al.
)
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 )
LICENSEES' ANSWER TO OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, INC.
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR A FORMAL ADJUDICATORY HEARING On December 11, 1987, the N'1 clear Regulatory Commission pub-lished in the Federal Register a Notice of Consideration of Issu-ance of Amendment to Facility Operating Licenss and Opportunity for Prior Hearing.
52 Fed. Req. 47064 (1987).
The Notice stated that the Commission was considering the issuance of an amendment to Operating Lice.ising No. NPF-58 issued to The Cleveland Elec-tric Illuminating Company, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, and The Toledo Edison Com-pany ("Licensees") for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1.
The ar.e.ndment would (1) delete Technical Specifications relating to the Main Steam Isolation Valve Leakage Control System
("MSIVLCS") and (2) revise the leakage criteria for primary con-tainment allowable leakage through the main steam lines, i
- R ffffl680122 P
" is#!
?
On January 7, 1988, Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. ("OCRE") filed a Petition for Leave to Intervene and request
~
for a Formal AdjudicaU r' Hearing with respect to that part of the proposed license amendment that would delete Technical Speci-fications relating to the MSIVLCS
?CRE does'nor seek to chal-lenge the revision to the leakage criteria for primary contain-ment allowable leakage through the main steam lines.
The Petition purports to set forth OCRE's interest in the proceeding, how that interest might be affected by the results of the pro-ceeding and the specific aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which OCRE vishes to intervene.
Licensees do not take issue with OCRE's showing of its interest.
However, Licensees respectfully submit that OCRE has not adequately shown either how that interest might be affected by the results of the proceeding or the specific aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding.
OCRE's attempt to ;-how how its interest would be affected by the deletion of Technical Specifications relating to the MSIVLCS is limited to a brief reference to a generic analysis in NUREG-0933A# of the consequences of a core-melt accident with large MSIV leakage.
The analysis assumed an accident sequence in which releases occur immediately downstream of the first 1/
NUREG-0933, "A Prioritization of Generic Sn!ety Issues" (August 1987) i
9 non-seismic Category 1 component (turbine stop valve) on the main steam line.
That analysis calculated 45 "early fatalities" with-in 50 miles of the site and 6.2 x 106 man-rem.
While OCRE implies that these values apply to the Perry facility, that implication is incorrect.
CCRE's reliance on the NRC's postulated accident is inconsistent with the Technical Specification change which OCRE chose not to challenge.
The NUREG-0933 analysis assumes 3000 SCFH leakage, while the Techni-cal Specification requires a leakage criterion of 100 SC7H.
I r.
addition, NUREG-0933 concludes that the proposal change in proce-dures with respect to MSIV leakage that Licensees are proposing (i.e. use of the isolated condenser mode) would substantially re-duce accident exposures to the current Perry system.
See NUREG-0933, at 2.C.8-6-8.
Furthermore, while the NUREG-0933 analyses (as OCRE notes) uses Perry site population and meteorol-
- ogy, Petition at 4, that is the only Perry reference with respect to this analysis.
As OCRE fails to note, the analysis used "some characteristics of the Br owns Ferry steam lines".
NUREG-0933, at 2.C.8-4.
Perry is a BWR 6 Mark III facility; Browns Ferry is a BWR 4, Mark I.
OCRE has failed to indicate what, if any, similarities 'he two steam lines have.
- Finally, OCRE's argument implies t
> MSIVLCS would exist at Perry if the amendment were granted s.nce the NRC analysis is based on no control over MSIV leakage.
The proposed Technical Specification.
- f amendment neither contemplates nor allows the removal of the MSIVLCS.
If the amendment is granted, the MSIVLCS will physi-cally remain in place.
For all these reasons, OCRE's reliance on the NUREG-0933 calculation is inapposite and cannot support a showing the OCRE's interest would be affected by the outcome of this proceeding.
With respect to OCRE's showing of "specific aspects", the Petition fails to show anything specific.
OCRE merely states (Petition at 4), that the "aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding which OCRE plans to challenge include the validity of the 3nalytical assumptions and iaethodologies upon which Appli-cants rely".
This hardly constitute specificity.
While OCRE was not required to set or: contentions at this stage of the proceed-ing, it has nonetheless failed to meet its burden of showing spe-cific aspects.
For these reasons, Licensees su mit that OCRE has failed to meet the obligations which the Federal Register notice and MRC regulations place upon it.
Licensees respectfully request that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board be appointed to rule upon OCRE's petition.
Respectfully submitted, f.
f 4t Jaf S.
'Silberg, P.C.
Shaw/ Fittman, Potts & Trowbridge.
t L ". l :i" UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 26 JW 26 m):18 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board 0F' id c--
.t
-c' 00CKii m '
.! ^ICf.
SRANLM In the Matter of
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)
Docket No. 50-440 OLA ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al.
)
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE The undersigned, being an attorney at law in good standing admitted to practice before the Courts of the District of Columbia and the State of New ersey, hereby enters his appear-ance on behalf of The Cleveland tectric Illuminating Company, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, and The Toledo Edison Company, in the above-captioned proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, f'h l
(
't f Jayj/. $iloerg
/
SHAW, P5TTMAN, FOTTS & TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 (202) 663-8000 Dated:
Januaryjhl,1988.
e -
9 0CC a.i. ; E :'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
? N ".
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 88 JM 26 M138 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board QFI;ru.-
..,e-CKt W is 'r.sig e
ORahC-In the Matter of
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)
Docket No. 50-440 OLA ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al.
)
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify.that copies of "Licensees' Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. Petition for Leave to In-tervene and Request for a Formal Adjudicatory Hearing" was served upon those persons on the attached service list, by first class mail, postage prepaid, this 9$bd day of January, 1988.
(')
(? g.
f% (i /%L%;
Jay (B/pilberg
/
j Dated: January $b2, 1988.
%~
t i
SERVICE LIST Docketing and Service Section Office of'the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Colleen Woodhead, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
~ Ms. Susan L. Hiatt 8275 Munson Avenue Mentor, Ohio 44060-.
---r
,