ML20212N193
| ML20212N193 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1986 |
| From: | Dignan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212N194 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#386-496 OL-1, NUDOCS 8608280124 | |
| Download: ML20212N193 (7) | |
Text
e-e i
DATED:
August 22, 1986
.L/
. /
DOCMETEC USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 36 Am 27 A10:38 before the 0FFICE OF y,qauy 00CMEige. royg ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL'/
NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL-/
)
On-site' Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
Planning and
)
Safety Issues
)
)
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE LICENSE TO CONDUCT FUEL LOAD AND PRECRITICALITY TESTING The Applicants say as follows:
The Applicants seek authorization to load fuel into, and conduct precriticality testing with respect to, Seabrook Station Unit 1.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 50.57(c), an applicant in a contested operating license proceeding may move the Licensing Board to authorize the issuance, by the Director of Nuclear R'eactor Regulation (" Director"),, of a license permitting activities short of full power operation, notwithstand'ing the pendency of safety contentions before 8608280124 U60822 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G
POR bh
r the Licensing Board.1 The regulation was promulgated "to provide explicitly for early consideration of facility testing in the even't of a contested hearing on the issuance of a license for full power operation."
36 Fed. Reg. 8862 (May 14, 1971).
If no party opposes the issuance of the license, the rule prov, ides that,the Board will issue an order' authorizing the Director to make the appropriate findings in Section
\\
2 10 C.F.R. 6 50.57(c) provides:
An applicant may, in a case where a hearing is held in connection with a pending proceeding under this section, make a motion in writing, pursuant to this paragraph (c), for an operation at not more than 1 percent of full power for the purpose of t'esting the facility), and further operations short of full power operation.
Action on such a motion by the presiding officer shall be taken with due regard to the rights of the parties to the proceedings, including the right of any-party to be heard to the extent that his contentions are relevant to the activity to be authorized.
Prior to taking any action on such a motion which any party opposes, the presiding officer shall make findings on the matters specified in paragraph (a) of this section as to which there is a controversy, in the form of an initial decision with respect to the contested activity sought to be authorized.
The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will make findings on all other matters specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
If no party opposes the motion, the presiding officer will issue an order pursuant to 5 2.730(o) of this chapter, authorizing the Director oJ Nuclear Reactor Regulation to make appropriate findings on the matters specified in paragraph (a) of this section and to issue a license for the requested operation. <
. ~.
e 50.57(c).2 Ena Duka Pcwer Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),.LBP-82-21, 19 N.R.C.
1304, 1305-06 (1984).
'Even if a party opposes the issuance of the license, the Director chould be permitted to make the appropriate Section 50.57(a) findings, unless' the party's admitted contentions are relevant to the activity to be authorized.
10 C.F.R. 50.57(c); Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power P1, ant, Units 1 & 2), LBP-81-5, 13 N.R.C.
- 226, 2
l'0 C.F.R.
S 50.57(a) provides that an operating license may be issued upon finding that:
(1) Construction of the facility has been substantially completed, in conformity with the construction permit and the application as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission;
.and (2) The facility will operate in conformity with the application as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; and (3) There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by the operating licence can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in
{
compliance with the regulations in this chapter; and (4) The applicant is technically and financially qualified to engage in the activities authorized by the operating license in accordance with the regulations in this chapter.
However, no finding of financial qualifications is necessary for an electric utility applicant for' an operating license for a production or utilization facility of.the type described in 5 50.21(b) or 5 50.22.
l (5) The applicable provisions of Part 140 of this chapter have been satisfied; and (6) The issuance of the license will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of.the public.
i
- -.. -,. ~,
,--.,._-l_,v
233 (1981); Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (DIablo. Canyon Nuclear-Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-83-27, 18 N.R.C.
1146,,1].49-50 (1983).
As demonstrated below, none of the Intervenors' remaining contentions in the full power operating license pro.ceeding are relevant to this motion foe authorization to load fuel and conduct precriticality testing.
As the Commission observed in Pacific Gas and Electric Company, supra, 18 N.R.C.
at 1149:
The risk to public health and safety from fuel loading and precriticality testing is extremely low since no self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction will take place under the terms of the license and therefore no radioactive fission products will be produced.
The pending contentions in this proceeding.egard'ing off-site emergency plans are not relevant to Applicant's motion for authorization to load fuel and conduct precriticality testing.
10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(d); Long Island Lighting Company (Shereham Nuclear Power Station), CLI-85-1, 21 N.R.C. 275 (1985) ("[Section 50.47(d)] established unqualified authorization to issue a, low power license in the absence of either NRC or FEMA approval of an off-site emergency plan and without the need for a predictive finding of reasonable assurance that a full-power license will eventually issue, so long as the prerequisites for a low-power license are met," 21 N.R.C. at 278).
Turning now to the rcmai'ning unresolved technical issues:
As set forth in the Affidavit of Vincent J.
Esposito (attached hereto as Exhibit A), the maintenance of a boron concentration of 2000 ppm or greater precludes
~
criticality in the Seabrook Unit 1 core even if it is assumed that all control rods are withdrawn.
Exh. A at V
4-E.
As set forth in the Affidavit of George S.
Thomas l
(attached hereto as Exhibit B), special procedures will be in place during the contemplated fuel loading and precriticality testing to assure that the boron concentration does not go below 2000 ppm.
Exh.
B, 5 5.
These pro,cedures consist of p'eriodic sampling of the water in the reactor and make-up supply; sampling of the contents of make-up water whenever water is added to verify the concentration; and locking (by chains and padlocks) a.ll valves, the opening of which could permit the entry of nonborated water into the reactor coolant system.
Id.
This being the case no control room operation is needed to assure a boron concentration of great'er than 2000 ppm and thus the preclusion of criticality.
As a result the issues raised by SAPL Contention Supp. No. 6 (Detailed Control Room Design Review) (formerly N.H. No. 10) are irrelevant to the activities contemplated under the authorization sought.
Similarly, the issues raised by NECNP Contention I.B.2
, environmental qualification of electrical equipment)
(
are also irrelevant to the contemplated activities.
The presence of elevated boron concentrations renders e
0 r.
s
unnecoccary the use of any electrical control equipment or control circuitry important to safety to prevent criticality or provide safe shutdown.
Affidavit of Joseph M.
Salvo (attached hereto as Exhibit C) at 1 4; see also Exh. B at 1 4.
In addition, the Esposito Affidavit (Exhibit A) also
~
demonstrates that in the highly unlikely event that a break should occur which resulted in an entire loss of the reactor coolant from the core, there still would be no need for reliahce upon control room operations or electrical systems
' or circuitry to maintain suberiticality because the resulting loss of neutron generation capability of the fuel dominates the accompanying loss of neutron absorption capability of the borated coolant.
Exh. A at 1 6 et'seg.
Finally, the Affidavit of James A. MacDonald (attached hereto as Exhibit D) demonstrates that there will be no need,' during fuel load and precriticality testing, to implement the emergency classification system, which is the subject of Contentions NH-20 and NECNP III.l.
This is so because the reactor will not go critical and thus there is no potential for release of radioactive material.
Thus, the issues raised by these contentions are likewise irrelevant to the activities sought to be authorized.
In Diablo Canyon, supra, 18 N.R.C.
at 1149, the Commission found:
A review of the pleadings on Joint Intervenors' two hearing requests reveals no significant safety cencerns material to fuel loading and pre-criticality testing.
This should not be surprising since the IDVP and ralated efforts focus on plant systems engineered to handle the hazards associated with radioactive
. fission products and, as stated'above, no such fission products will be produced.
Similarly, in this case there are no significant safety issues relevant to fuel loadihg and precriticality testing.
Therefore, this Board should authorize the Director'to make appropriate findings and issue the requested license authorizing fuel load and precriticality testing.
WHEREFORE, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 50.57(c), the Applicants move the Board to issue a decision finding that none of the pending contentions in this proceeding has relevance to the activities of fuel loading and precriticality testing and to issue an order pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
$ 2.730(e) authorizing the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to make the necessary findings and issue a license authorizing the loading of fuel into the reactor vessel of Seabrook Unit No. 1 and the conduct of precriticality testing of the facility.
By its attorneys,
. - (f l
0 Tho6as 6. DIgnan, Jr.
R.K.
Gad III Kathryn A.
Selleck Ropes & Gray,
225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617)423-6100
--