ML19249A371
| ML19249A371 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1979 |
| From: | Sohinki S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19249A367 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908220352 | |
| Download: ML19249A371 (6) | |
Text
July 6, 1979 U'! I T E D ! Tf7 ~ ~ '~ ~ " "" ' C '
~
NUCLEM REGULIE C "IL !3N BEFORE THE ATrut[c sgpg y ' q tic u 7 ;; pqnp9 In the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPAt;Y
)
Doct. t f;c. 50 466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESP 0ilSE TO LICENSI ;G E0ARD GRDER OF JUNE 25,1979 AND
.TE7,PIRG AMENDMENTS TO ADDITIONL CONTEilTI0t!S 28. 35, 38, 40 and 42 On June 15, 1979, the Texas Public Interest Re earch Group filed a pleading entitled "TEXPIRG A.cendments and Realies M T::plf: ant and Staff 'to Cor.tentions Submitted Pursuar.t to ALAB-535." That pleading contained amendments to certain contentions submitted by TEXPIRG in a May 16, 1979 filing.
It also contained replies to Staff and Applicant responses to certain of TEXPIRG's contentions.
Because TEXPIRG had not sought leave of this Board to file its replies and/or amendments, the Staff indicated, in its letter of June 20, 1979 to this Board, that it did not intend to respond to TEXPIRG's June 15 pleading unless requested to do so by this Board.
In its Order dated June 25, 1979, this Board agreed in part and disagreed in part with the Staff's position. While agreeing that TEXPIRG's replies to Additional Contentions 29, 37, 45 and 50 were unauthorized and were therefore not to be considered, it found that TEXPIRG's amendments to contentions 28, 35, 38, 40 and 42 could be filed without leave of the Board on the theory that 10 CFR 32.714(a)(3) pemits a party "to amend its contentions without prior approval of the Board." (Order, p. 2).
790822 0 3s'A B47 113-
_7_
Having determined that TD. PUG ncy m 23, Z,.,3, 40 and 42 without prior approval, this Board has u.ues &d t.ne Staff and Acplicant to submit responses to these air. ended conte.r.',icris.
(Grder, p. 2).
The Staff's responses follow, seriatim.
h D "
]D D
' 3
' }$U 0 m
.A CONTENTION 28 Ju o
TEXPIRG's " amendment" does not call for a change in the Staff's June 5,1979 A bald assertion that the Marth Anna and Allens Creek cooling lakes responses.
are "sufficiently similar" that they pra:cr.: the same earthquake threat does not provide a basis for the contention.
Indeed, the lakes are not at all similar, Allens Creek being constructed on a " soil" site and North Anna on a " rock" site.
Further, as explained in the Junt 5 Staff response, the contention should be rejected in ar.y case, regardless of the alleged similarity between the two lakes, since the Applicant's and Staff's seismic analysis was discussed by this Board in its partial Initial Decision and because infomation relating to the North Anna lake could have been raised earlier.
CONTENTION 35 This amendment is premised upon the Aoplicant's failure to satisfy Staff requirements with regard to the everpressure protection systems. However, as explained in Section 5.2.2 of Supplement 2 to the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report, and specifically in the first paragraph on o. 5-4, the Staff has found the Allens Creek preliminary design to be acceptable.
Further, as indicated in Section 5.2.2, there are three systems provided in the Allens Creek design any one of which, by itself, will initiate a reactor trip signal or scram upon closure of the main steamline isolation valves (the most severe operational transient). These are the valve position signal system, neutron flux signal P00RDUINAL m
system and the high pressure signal system. TEXPIRG has provided no basis to believe that none of these systems would operate in the event that the main steamline isolation valve closes. Therefore, the contention should be rejected by this Board.
CONTENTION 38 The Staff response to this contention remains as stated in its June 5,1979 response to TEXPIRG's additional contentions (pp. 33-34). The contention remains a challenge to 10 CFR Part 20 without the requisite showing of special circumstances.
See 10 CFR 52.758.
CONTENTION 40 As the Staff understands this contention, TEXPIRG is alleging that the present piping system will result in the rupture of the reactor vessel in the event of a main steamline isolation valve closure ATWS event.
However, the Commission
~
and Appeal Board have both emphasized in the past that the Commission's regu-lations in 10 CFR 550.55a are designed to assure that reactor vessel failure will not occur, and that contentions regarding vessel failure will not be entertained absent a " substantial or prima facie" showing that, for the reactor in question, the standards found in 550.55a are not sufficient.
Consolidated Edison Co. (Indian Point Unit No. 2) CLI-72-29, 5 AEC 20, 21 (1972); Wisconsin Electric Power Co. et. al. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2) ALAB-137, 6 AEC 491, 503 (1973); Consumers Power Comoany (Midland Phnt, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-123, 6 AEC 331, 336 (1973). TEXPIRG has offered no support for the implication (it is no more than that) that the pressure vessel could be ruptured in the event of an ATWS event, let alone provided a " substantial or prima facie" basis for that implication. The contention should be rejected.
847 \\\\5
4-C0*lTE!!TIOf! 42 The Staff's response to this contention remains the same as in its June 5,1979 response to TEXPIRG's Additional Contentions (pp. 5, 36). The contention remains speculative since there is no basis alleged for the proposition that future federal regulations will permit the use of natural gas to fuel new base-load steam-electric plants.
Further, even if the federal policy were changed, TEXPIRG has offered no basis to believe that the half-trillion cubic feet of natural gas allegedly available would obviate the need for the Allens Creek facility.
For these reasons, the contention should be excluded by this
~
Board.
Respectfully submitted, Stephen M. Sohinki Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 6th day of July,1979.
847 H6
I;'.'Iil '
' 7.L G.3 :
P.En
' In the liatter oT
)
?
HOUST0:1 LIG!:TI:;3 ; Pr/ 79 C: -
4
- ~.
C: :C
.....o
?
(Allens Creek th iuo Generati-
)
Station, Vait !)
)
CERT!::"'? T:i
c f ? F': CF I hereby certify that copies of "?!RC STAFF's RESPONSE TO APPLICAfiT'S !10TI0t1 FOR FURTHER PROCEDURES RELATIiG TO TEXPIRG U;TR!E::T!O:!" and "t RC STAFF'S RESPUNSE 10 LICEllSING BOARD ORDER OF JUNE 25,19-'9 A::C TEXPIRG A::E: 0:1EflTS TO ADDITI0ilAL C0t1TENTI0 tis 28, 35, 33, 40 and 42" in t;1e above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or as indicated by an asterisk by deposit in the iluclear Regulatory Commission internal mail system, this 6th day of July, 1979:
Sheldon J Wol fe, Esq., Chai rman
- Jack Neuman, Esq.
Atonic Safety and Licensing Lcwenstein, Reis, !!evinan & Axelrad Coard Panel 1025 Connecticut Avenue, !!.'!.
U.S. I:uclear Reculatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20037 Washington, D. C.
20555 Richard Lowerre, Esq.
Dr. E. Leonard Cheatun Asst. Attorney Generai for the Route 3, Box 350A State of Texas Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 P. O. Box 12548 Canitol Station Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Austin, Texas 78711 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Jerry Sliva, rayor U.S. f!uclear Reculatory Commission City of 1lallis, Texas 77485 tlashington, D. C.
20555 Hon. John R. liikeska R. Gordon Gooch, Esq.
Austin County Jud:;e Baker & Botts P. O. Box 310 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, fl.W.
Bell lle, Texas 77418
!!ashington, D. C.
20006 Atonic Safety and Licensing J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Appeal Board
- Baker & Botts U.S. fiuclear Reculatory Comission noe Shell Plaza Washingten, D. C.
20555 ston, Texas 77002 P00R BRIGINAl.
8 4 7
,i i,.
Atomic Safety :.nd !.i...
Board Panel
- f i '; >
id
.ccr;".e 7702L U.S. Iluclear Ract.li.> f Co:.i r a
- a.. h 6-Washington, DC 20LL; Docketing and S;..vice Section
- T_....
"li;'.
'rn-t Office of the Sec f ary P.::c: ^r'.
' 7"p, Inc.
U.S. fluclear Rego'.atory Ccrniss or.
c/o J:.nes Sccat, Jr., Esq.
Washington, DC l20555 C332 At:r ore Houston. Tc.c.s 77074 Mr. John F. Daher'.y 4438 1/2 Leeland Ic/crue
- 'renda A. I'cCorkle llouston, Texas 77023 6140 Dacneli
}louston, Texas 77071 Mr. and i:rs. Robert S. frcr: son 4822 Ucynesboro Drive li.. Ryre Ren tfro Houston, Texas 77035 P.O. E.x 1335 Rosc @ rg, Texas 77471
~
Mr. F. H. Potthoff, III 1814 Pine Village fis. Kathryn Hooker Houston, Texas 71080 1421 Kipling Houston, Texas 77006 D. Marrack 420 Mulberry Lane fiationcl Lawyers Guild Ecllaire, Texas 77401 Houston Chapter 4803 Montrose Blvd.
Mr. Jean-Claude De Bremaecker Suite 11
~
2128 Addison llouston, Texas 77005 Houston, Texas 77030 Mrs. Karen L. Stade Jonathan Kamras P.O. Box 395 1901 S. Voss Rd., #7 Guy, Texas 77444 Houston, Texas 77057 Jon D. Pittman, Sr.
2311 Bamore Rosenberg, Texas 77471 epnen M.
doninKi -
Counsel for flRC Staff
'f f } })0
- ~
.