ML20198B840

Memorandum & Order Granting Applicant 850718 Motion for Summary Disposition of Joint Intervenors Contention 10.7 Challenging Adequacy of Environ Qualification of Hydrogen Recombiner Sys to Be Used at Facility.Served on 851106

ML20198B840
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	11/05/1985
From:	Linenberger G, Margulies M, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	GEORGIA POWER CO.
References
CON-#485-080, CON-#485-80 84-499-01-OL, 84-499-1-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8511070278
Download: ML20198B840 (6)

Text

-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y e w?8M ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Ag@I Before Administrative Judges: @ pjIW , '

Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Oscar H. Paris j'k*yg[

SERVED NOV -61985

) Docket Nos. 50-424-0L In the Matter of ) 50-425-OL

)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. ) (ASLBP No. 84-499-01-0L)

)

(Vogtle Electric Generating )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) November 5, 1985 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 10.7 re: HydrogenRecombiners)

Introduction In this contention Joint Intervenors Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia and Georgians Against Nuclear Energy challenge the adequacy of the environmental qualification of the hydrogen recombiner system to be used by Applicants in the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP). On July 18, 1985 Applicants filed a motion for summary disposition of the contention pursuant to 10 CFR 2.749. The NRC Staff (Staff) filed a response in support of that motion on August 30, 1985. No response was received from Joint Intervenors. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the motion.

$5giO70 fg Q -

TS0 1

~

i Applicable Law on Summary Disposition In our Memorandum and Order of October 3,1985 ruling upon Applicants' motion for sumary disposition of Contention 8, we set forth a discussion of this subject. We see no need to repeat that discussion.

Discussion 10 CFR Part 50, App. A, Criterion 41 - " Containment atmosphere cleanup" -- states in part that " Systems to control fission products, hydrogen, oxygen and other substances which may be released into the reactor containment shall be provided as necessary ... to assure that containment integrity is maintained." Following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), hydrogen may be produced inside the VEGP containment by radiolysis of the core coolant and sump solutions, by corrosion of aluminum and zinc, by reaction of the Zircalloy fuel cladding with water or steam, and by release of the hydrogen dissolved in the core coolant and contained in the pressurizer vapor dome. In order to maintain the hydrogen concentration at a low enough level to avoid its burning or exploding, which could breach containment integrity, Applicants have provided two hydrogen-oxygen recombination systems (recombiners) in each of the VEGP facilities. The function of the recombiners is to provide a mechanism whereby hydrogen and oxygen are combined to form water.

Although each recombiner is sized to handle the hydroger: content of each containment building, two recombiners are provided for each facility in order to achieve redundancy. Since the operation of a recombiner is initiated manually following a LOCA, a means to determine the need for

a-1 recombination must also be available. This is accomplished through the operation of a containment hydrogen monitoring system, discussed later.

Joint Intervenors' challenge in Contention 10.7 goes to the question of whether the recombiners have received adequate environmental testing to assure their operability in a post-LOCA environment. Owing to residual uncertainties of our own about this contention, the Board requested that the following questions be addressed:

Are there any types of transducers or sensors important to the proper functioning of the Vogtle electric-type hydrogen recombiner in an accident environment that require environmental qualification testing in an accident environ-ment; if so, what testing is planned or completed and with what results?.

If environmental qualification testing in an acci-dent environment of an entire prototype recombiner is not required, what is the basis for this conclusion? If such testing is planned or has been completed, what is the nature of the test and what criteria exist for assessing the adequacy of the test results?

Georgia Power Company, et al. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-35, 20 NRC 887, 905-906 (1984).

Applicants' motion for summary disposition of Contention 10.7 is accompanied by a statement of twenty-two alleged facts as to which no genuine issues exist. In support of these alleged facts, the motion is also accompanied by two affidavits and the professional qualifications of the affiants. The affiants are employed by two of Applicants' contractors: Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse), which -

manufactured and tested the recombiners; and by Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel), responsible for the hydrogen monitoring system.

e a

4-1 Both affiants have qualifications that satisfactorily support the expertise implicit in their respective affidavits.

The Westinghouse affidavit explains that there are three components or modules comprising each recombiner: a flameless, electrically j operated recombination module located within the containment building;

an electric power supply located exterior to the containment; and a i

control module for the manual control of the recombiner, also located exterior to the containment building. Since the hostile post-LOCA environment is confined within the containment building and only the.

recombination module is located within the containment, environmental qualification of only the-recombination module'is necessary. Thus there

.is no need to test the entire recombiner system in a simulated, 4

post-LOCA environment. All three modules of the system have been 1-seismically. qualified, however. The VEGP will use a Westinghouse Model B recombiner system, which is a modified version of the older Model A system. The Model B system does not have sensors and transducers within r the contair. ment for the proper function of the system. Detailed tests performed upon the Model A system are described as are the supplemental tests which qualified those features of Model B that differ from Model

[ A. Test conditions exceeded those anticipated to exist in the post-LOCA environment within the VEGP containment. (We note in particular that

.' the recombiner module was tested in an acceptably severe radiation f i

l-

environment.) Successful performance of production versions of both .

1 recombiner models was demonstrated under these more severe conditions,-

} which we find to constitute acceptable test criteria.

n 4

y r-w.., , - . , . , e- - - ~ . , ae,ee, , ~ ,.m., y , , ,~,,eeg. -,,,,,,,.n,a +---- ,-p ,.,---.---.,...,,,,m -

,a.,-,,,,<m.

r The Bechtel affidavit affirms that the containment hydrogen monitoring system is located exterior to the containment building and does not rely upon any sensors and transducers within the containment for its operation. This unit makes use of a thermal conductivity determination that allows operators to analyze on a continual basis the concentration of hydrogen in the containment from a flow of containment gas piped through the containment wall to the analyzer. The sampler-analyzer unit has been designed and built as a Class IE Seismic Category I system.

We find Applicants' statement of facts as to which there are no litigable issues to be adequately supported by affidavits, to be correct and complete as to the issues, and to be dispositive of the Board's questions noted aoove.

Staff's response of August 30, 1985 states that Staff is in agreement with the granting of Applicants' motion for summary disposition of Contention 10.7. Its response is accompanied by two affidavits, along with statements of professional qualifications of the affiants, which qualifications we find to be satisfactory. Affiants affirm their agreement with all of Applicants' alleged facts. They further affinn that NRC has approved the design of the Westinghouse' Model B recombiner as well as the Westinghouse environmental qualification tests and the test results for the Model A and Model B systems.

6 6

Based upo:1 our review and consideration of all of the foregoing, we conclude that Applicants have established that there are no litigable issues of fact, and that the recombiners have received adequate environmental testing to assure their operability in a post-LOCA environment, conclusions uncontroverted by Joint Intervenors.

Contention 10.7 is without merit.

ORDER The Board grants Applicants' motion for sumary disposition of Contention 10.7 and the contention is dismissed.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD f W MortonB. Marg 6 Ties,(phairman Administrative Law JWdge W

Dr. Oscar H. Paris W$

Administrative Judge k vs.

Gu tave A. Linenbe W , Jr.

inistrative Judge Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of November, 1985.

.i