ML19350D250

Reply Opposing Applicant 810324 Motion for License Authorizing Up to 35% Rated Power Operation.Alleged Need to Bolster Util Summer Reserve Is Result of Scheduling Oconee 1 Maint During Summer Peak.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19350D250
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, McGuire
Issue date:	04/02/1981
From:	Jeffrey Riley CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8104140462
Download: ML19350D250 (6)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:l

   -                                                                           L    l                                  l ll        Dock D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                      y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION         2     APR e3

• 4 1 Dv o 61981 > '.h .

BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOARb [Se g' ro Br  % In the Matter of ) p

                                                                  )                              %      4 FUKE POWER COMPANY                       )      Docket Nos. 50-369 s ,q').. R '.                                                )                     50-370
                                                                  )                   ,

[v'lO!. 4.'l , ,, u. '(William

                    ' .i's
                         - St'a$on, m             Units 1B.add McGuire

2) ) Nuclear b 1 $$F M qfi g ?. a 4 pass %

CESG'S REPLY TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR LICENSE .Th. Y .s

                ,ogsw [                AUTHORIZING UP TO 35% RATED POWER OPERATIONS 4/
           )Q                      Applicant on March 24, 1961, filed a motion for a license authorizing operations up to and including 35% rated power.

CESG herewith files its opposition to that motion and request that it be denied. Applicant also requests expeditious treatment of its motion by this Board, alleging that "a full power license will be necessary in mid to late June, 1961." The " necessity" is a consequence of a circumstance which Applicant has devised. Applicant has scheduled Oconee Urlt 1 for a 15 week outage on July 27, 1981. The highest monthly temperatures in Applicant's service area occur in July and August (Average Daily Temperatures , ( F) in Nor th America, Intermediate Property Standards for. Solar Heating and Domestic Hot Water, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C.) This is the most likely time for summer peak and, with a few exceptions, has historically been the case. Similarly December and January are the coldest months in the service area and the usual time for winter peaks. If the cutage l were to be scheduled from August 24 to December 7 it would greatly reduce the probability of encountering a peak in demand Y siono d r6L 3 g,5O

1

                . . . _ _ . _ ~~ ._ -   -           .                       -.

coincident with the outage. If one assumes a 500 MW forced outage, Applicant's expected reserve would be 1161 MW instead of 321 MW, 11 3% instead of 3 07% (See Attachment A of Enclosure 1, which purports to be the " Duke Power 1981 Summer Reserve Capacity Estimate" and.has been put before the Cohmission in a letter to (former) Chairman Ahearne by six Members of Congress.). The " necessity" to which Applicant refers is of its own making and should not be accorded consideration in ts pleading for an up to 35% power license. Applicant relies on 10 CFR 550.57 (c) as a basis for granting a license for " operations short of full power operation". Applicant should note that this paragraph further provides, 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. There are in controversy matters concerning public health and safety, CESG's contentions 3 and 4 Under this paragraph these matters which fall under 10 CFR 350.57 la) (3) an initial decision as to these matters must issue before the contested 1 activity can be authorized. lt is, in the context of Applicant's I instant motion immaterial as to whether "the record fails to provide any evidence that challenges Applicant's entitlement to a license authorizing operations up to and including 35% rated 1 1 power". This hearing consolidated consideration of power levels  ; I from 5% to full power.

                                                                                         \
                  =

0

o , Applicant cites the testimony of R.A. Muench, Tr. 3046-51, 3003, to indicate that at "359 power operation . . . a TMI-type event cannot occur". The witness testified that, at 35% power .. operation, the FUMV would not open if all four steam generator loops were nnctioning as heat sinks and if auxiliary feed water supply was resumed in 4,000 seconds or less. The witness did not state whether longer periods of feed water outage had been considered nor did he testify as' to the con-sequences of an on site power loss or auxiliary water supply failure. We do not challenge the authenticity of the testimony given. We do call to the Board's attention that the conclusion  : as to whether or not the FUHV opens depends on the assumptions which were made in this computer exercise. The steam generator boil-dry-time was not determined. With boil-dry the reactor pressure and temperature would, as at TM1, cause the FUHV to open. Nor was there consideration of reactor heat removal under conditions of natural circulation which would prevail in the case of on site power loss. Even these observations place in less than full perspective the very limited range of considerations proferred by the Applicant. Any small pipe break at 35% power operation would be roughly equivalent to a P0HV which had stuck in the open position. The consideration of potential hazards in safeguarding against accidents cannot hinge on Applicant's narrow and arbitrary selection of accident events 1. e 1 Acmitted CESG contention 1 states "The licensee has not dem-l 6nstrated that in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident at ' P:Guire "certain events including hydrogen. generation will not occur. In no way did CESG or the Board (continued on pg. 4)

                                             -g_

Even at 5% power operation a small loss-of-coolant accident can result in a hydrogen release sufficient to support burning 2 in the containment . A long power outage could result in this consequence. The record contains no testimony setting an upper i limit to a power outage. , CESG requests this Board to deny Applicant's motion to generate up to 355 power. The alleged need to bolster Applicant's summer reserve is a consequence of scheduling Oconee unit 1 main-tenance during the most likely period of summer peak. The p,ro-- visions of 10 CFR 550 57 (c) do no't call for authorizing an action in controversy prior to an initial decision. The Appli-cant's claim that hydrogen would not be released by a stuck PORV at a 35% level of operation depends on the specific assumptions made in computer runs.and the ignoring of the fact that admitted contention 1 is not restrictive as to the type of loss-of-coolant accident. Applicant's motion should be denied. He ectfully 'mitted, ldd sse L. Riley f CESG _ April 2, 1981 4 I 6 (continued from page 3) confine loss-of-coolant accident consideration to a replay of the events at TMI-2. 2 See "NRC Staff Supplement to 'NRC Staff Response to CESG's Revised ) Motion to Reopen the Operating License Proceeding; Motion to Deny l Applicant's Request for Fuel Loading, Etc.,.and Revised Contentions', j Affidavit of Norran Laubman, Nov. 7, 1980. j

g) Of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k D?r?rg I y~4 4eg (? d,. 0 cc.- V SEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFITY AND LICENSING BOA' glfeg,,198[[ - j-o #?g?b$lhff' In the Matter of 1 g, x k3

                                                 )
                                                 )

g e N DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-369

                                                 )                     50-370 (William 3. McGuire Nuclear        ),

• Station, Units 1 and 2) ) -

AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE I hereby affirm that copies of "CESG's Reply to Applicant's Motion For License Authorizing Up To 35% Rated Power Operations, dated April 2, 1961,. in the captioned matter, have been served by deposit in the United States mail this 2nd day of April, 1961. Rc'ert c M. Lazo, Esq. Edward G. Eatchen, Esq. Chairman, Atcmic Safety and Counsel for NRC Regulatory Licensing Board Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive e Cc==ission Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. E=meth A. Luebke Washington, D.C. '0555 Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board William L. Porter, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Associate General Counsel Commission Duke Power. Company Washington, D.C. 20555 Post Office Sox 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative ~ Judge Chairman - I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atcmic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 J. Michael McGarry, 111, Esq. Diane 3. Cohn Debevoise and Liberman William 3. Schultz 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Public Citizen Litigation Group Washington, D.C. 20036 Suite 700 2000 P Street, N.W. Mayor Eddie Knox Washington, D.C. l 20036 600 East Trade Street . Charlotte, N.C. eJ202  ! 6

4 e e s Chairman, Atomic Safety Shelly Blum, Esq. and Licensing Appeal Board 1402 Vickers Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Durham, North Carolina 27707 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Chase R. Stephens Docketing and Service Section Dr. John M. Barry Office of the Secretarv Department of Environmental U.S. Nuclear Reculator$-

                                                                          ~      ~

Health Commission Mecklenburg County Washington, D.C. 20555 1200 Blythe Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 7 ,Y / _ JA&!C fl Jedsh'L. j Riley e e l e i m 1 1

  .      _ --               _                         -                                        1}}