ML20033C045
| ML20033C045 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1981 |
| From: | Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8112020606 | |
| Download: ML20033C045 (3) | |
Text
g
~ SERVED NOV 3 U 1931 00LKETED U%RC s d81 I is;p, /,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'81 NOV 30 P3:30 lifjj;'
ATOMIC. SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Mj2' E
mE OF SECREIARY dy{t ChER*6CE Before Administrative Judges:
DE03.
- gg;,
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Or. Jerry R. Kline h
D Mr. Frederick J. Shon
/
t*
In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-440-OL 50-441-0L CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al.
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2)
November 30, 1981
~
ORDER (Concerning Petition to Waive Comission Regulation, So that Electromagnetic Pulse Contention Can be Considered)
On November 3,1981, Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy (0CRE) renewed its attempt to gain admission of an electromagnetic pulse contention into this proceeding by petitioning under 10 CFR 2.758(b) for waiver of 10 CFR 50.13.
In our October 2,1981 Order, we had excluded this contention from consideration because of the operation of 50.13.
An electromagnetic pulse can originate from the high altitude explosion of a nuclear device.
If the explosion is of sufficient force and occurs at an altitude of approximately 150 to 250 miles above sea level, it can travel hundreds of miles, inducing electrical currents in solid state electrical components, thereby damaging or destroying them.
OCRE alleges that this phenomenon could disable nuclear reactor safety systems, leaving operators with no control and leading to core degradation.
In its November 24, 1981 filing, the NRC Staff'(Staff) correctly indicates that 0CRE's petition is governed by 10 CFR 2.758, which states 7
0 s
yo 8112O20606 811130-PDR ADOCK 05000440 G
f 9
EMP Waiver: 2 that "the sole grounds"- for such petitions "shall be that special circumstances with respect to the subject matter of the particular proceeding are such that application of the rule... would not serve the purposes for which the rule... was adopted."
One of the grounds for 0CRE's petition is that the purpose of 10 CFR s50.13 is to protect applicants for licenses from having to undertake impractical measures to defend their plants against nuclear attacks. As 0CRE points out, this Board has already said that it may be practicable to defend against EMP.
Furthermore, the Commission is undertaking studies about the effects of EMP on nuclear plants and methods of hardening these plants against EMP.
(See SECY 81-641, included in our record by a notice of November 23,1981.)
However, the standard for granting petitions such as 0CRE's has two prongs. OCRE has addressed only one prong, dealing with whether the purposes of the rule would be served by its application.
Staff have contested whether 0CRE's argument on this single prong is correct, but we need not decide that issue because the other prong has not been addressed at all. As the Commission stated with respect to a serious safety concern raised in Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.
1), 11 NRC 674 (1980) at 675:
We are of course aware that the Three Mile Island accident resulted in hydrogen being generated f ar in excess of the hydrogen generation design basis assumptions of 10 CFR 50.44.
This was because the operator interfered with actual ECCS operation with the result that the safety system did not operate as designed and as 50.44 assumed it would operate. However, this is a safety issue that is not peculiar to Three Mile Island Unit 1 -- it is an issue that is common to all light water power reactors because operators generally have the phys"'al capability to interfere with automatic ECC5 operation.
The prc response to this issue is not waiver of the rule under 10 CFR 2.
oecause this case presents no "special circumstances," but a rulemaking to either amend or suspend the present rule.
[Enphasis supplied.]
s g
EMP Waiver: 3 I
J We are aware that OCRE will not be pleased that its second attempt to E
raise an important issue must be rebuffed by us, for.the second time, on what may seem to it to be a narrow, procedural ground. However, Commission precedent is clear on this issue.
OCRE must find its remedy pursuant to a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 62.802.
Under= subsection (d) of that section, OCRE-may also move to suspend all or part of this. proceeding during the pendency of the rulemaking it may propose.
j 0RDER For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of. the entire record in this matter, it is this 30th day of November 1981 4
j ORDERED:
(1) Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy's November 3, 1981 petition i
4 for waiver of 10 CFR 50.13 is denied.
l (2) This is an interlocutory ruling and is not subject to appeal.
i FOR THE
+
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD j
0 L
Peter B.' Bloch, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland 1
i f
,_