ML19281A592
| ML19281A592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1979 |
| From: | Sohinki S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| RTR-WASH-1400 NUDOCS 7903210381 | |
| Download: ML19281A592 (9) | |
Text
3/6/79
,), _ t
.m.-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & PCWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTION OF J. H. DOHERTY FOR ADMISSION OF SEVERAL CONTENTIONS PREVIOUSLY ABANDONED DUE TO CLASS 9 ACCIDENT PR0HIBITION ON CONTENTIONS BASED ON WASH-1400, REACTOR SAFETY STUDY (RSS)
The NRC Staff supports,in part, the February 14, 1979 motion to admit three new contentions as matters in controversy in the captioned proceeding filed by John H. Doherty, both as an individual and as representative of the Armadillo Coalition of Texas, Houston Chapter.
On February 12, 1979, this Board served on all the petitioners its
" Order Ruling Upon Intervention Petitions."
In that order, the Board found (p. 18-20) that the Armadill.o Coalition lacked standing to intervene but determined that Mr. Doherty, as an individual, had satis-fiad the requirements for standing. However, concluding that none of Mr. Doherty's contentions were admissible as issues in controversy, the Board denied his petition for leave to intervene.
7903210'58l Since Mr. Doherty's petition for leave to intervene was denied solely on the grounds that he failed to set forth at least one admissible contention, the Staff believes that the contentions set forth in the February 14 Motion must be scrutinized carefully to determine whether the Board's 1
prior Order should remain in force with respect to Mr. Doherty.
/
BASIS FOR THE MOTION The justification asserted by the Petitioner for the admission of the three contentions as. issues in controversy is the recent publication of the Lewis Conmittee Report (NUREG/CR-0400), which contains serious criticisms directed at the Reactor Safety Study. 2_/
However, the publication of the Lewis Committee Report provides no basis for the admission of Contentions 1 and 3 as issues in controversy, since the motion, at least with respect to those two contentions, is bottomed upon a fallacious assumption, namely that the general prohibition on litigation of " Class 9 contentions" has its genesis in the findings contained in WASH-1400. That is simply not the case.
MApparently, Mr. Doherty filed his Motion prior to his r'eceipt of the Board Order denying his petition for leave to intervene.
Parenthetically, the Staff notes its complete disagreement with Mr. Doherty's characterization of events leading to his " abandonment" of the three contentions he now seeks to raise.
. The general rule that no detailed discussion of Class 9 accidents is required in licensing proceedings is based upon the Proposed Annex A to Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 (Annex).
The Annex was proposed as a Commission regulation on December 1, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 22851),
and authorized by the Comission for use as " interim guidance" with regard to accident analysis for nuclear plants. The publication of the Annex significantly predated the completion of WASH-1400, which was not published even in draft form until August, 1974 (39 Fed. Reg. 30964). As the Appeal Board has recently noted, "[t]he policy that environmental statements on (land-based) plants generally need not consider Class 9 accidents rests on a 1971 Comission judgment that their likelihood is so remote as to make them incredible." Offshore Power System (Floating Nuclear Power Plants) ALAB-489, 8 NRC 194, 212, (1978).
Thus, WASH-1400 clearly was not the basis on which Class 9 accidents were excluded from detailed discussion in individual licensing proceedings for land-based reactors, as implied in the title and text of Mr. Doherty's motion.
Further, in its Interim General Statement of Policy, issued contemporaneously with the publication of the draft Reactor Safety Study, the Comission stated clearly that "the contents of the draft study are not an appropriate basis for licensing decisions."
(39 Fed. Reg. 30964, August 27,1974).
- Indeed, it is important to note that the Commission has made no change in its general policy regarding consideration of Class 9 accidents as a result of the Lewis Committee critique.
Instead, it has directed the Staff to report to it any instances in which WASH-1400 has been relied upon by the Staff in licensing proceedings. Any policy change by the Commission in light of the Comnittee's findings would, of necessity, have generic implications.
Thus, as this Board has recognized in its " Order Ruling on Intervention, Petitions," dated February 9,1979, this licensing proceeding "is not the appropriate forum" in which to litigate issues regarding the validity of the Reactor Safety Study (p.14).
Mr. Doherty's erroneous assumption concerning Staff and/or Commission use of WASH-1400 aside, Contentions 1 and 3 set forth in the Motion are inadmissible in any case.
Contention 1 reads as follows:
Pressure from blowdown following transient accidents, loss of coolant accidents, power excursion accidents, and power coolant mismatch accidents may crack or otherwise destroy the integrity of the containment building, increasing the danger that the reactor fission product inventory will escape in the event of a reactor vessal breach.
Petitioner maintains significant new evidence has been raised on this problem in NUREG-0460 V.1, V.2, and V.3.
First, there is no basis stated in the contention for the allegation that the accidents mentioned may destroy the integrity of the containment building.
That statement of basis is required by 10 CFR 52.714, and
! necessary here especially because the accidents listed are all design basis accidents or transients which are to be accounted for in the des of the facility.
Since these accidents should be taken into account design, it is not at all apparent what inadequacy, if any, in that design is being alleged.
Secondly, the contention postulates a reactor vessel failure without stating how the accidents listed would lead to such a failure.
Thirdly, contentions relating to breach of the pressure vessel have not been proscribed by WASH-1400, but are governed by the Com decision in Consolidated Edison Co_. (Indian Point Unit No 5 AEC 20 (1973),
which of course also substantially predated WASH-1400 That decision indicates that protection against the consequences of pressure vessel failure need not be required for a facility unless it has been determined that for the facility in question there are special considerations that make it necessary that vessel failure be considered The basis for that decision was that the standards "for pressure vessel construction and inspection found in the regulations,10 CFR 9550.55a(
and 50.55a(c), (g), were designed to assure that vessel failure would not Since the Petitioner has alleged no special circumstances specific occur.
to thL Allens Creek facility which would justify consideration of such an occurrence, the contention is not admissible for reasods independent of the Lewis Committee Report.
Further, the reference to NUREG-0460 suggests that the Petitioner intends to raise ATiIS concerns.
The direct ATWS contention, Contention 2, is discussed below.
In Contention 3, Mr. Doherty asserts that:
Pressure from blowdown following trantient accidents, loss of coolant accidents, power excursion accidents, and power coolant mismatch accidents combined with a single or many stuck relief valves, increase the danger that the reactor fission product inventory will escape in the event of a reactor vessal breach.
This contention also deals with the possibility of a reactor vessel breach without stating a basis for the occurrence of such an event. The Comission's decision in the Indian Point proceeding, suora, is equally applicable to bar the admission of this contention as a matter in controversy.
By reference to " common cause" accidents, in the comment concerning this contention, it appears that this connection intends to raise ATWS concerns. The direct ATWS contention is discussed below.
Although Contentions 1 and 3 must be rejected for the reasons discussed
~
above, Contention 2 involves an entirely different situation.
It reads as follows :
The petitioners are not adequately protected against Anticipated Transients Without Scram Accidents (ATWS).
New information shows that 20 transients per annum are tyoical for new reactors with about 6 transients per annum typical after several years. Applicant has only a manually operated -
SCRAM system as its redundant system.
We assume that the new information referred to in the contention is that contained in NUREG-0460, the report identified in the last line of Contention 1.
We believe that Contention 2 would be litigable in this proceeding had it been timely filed.
However, since the contention was not timely filed, consideration of whether t'here is good cause for the late filing is necessary.
The Petitioner's explanation for the late filing is the criticism of WASH-1400 in the Lewis Committee Report. WASH-1400 does discuss ATWS events, and the Lewis Committee did comment on the WASH-1400 analysis of those events (NUREG/CR-0400, p. 46).
Mr. Doherty argues that the changed nature of the information available to him with regard to reactor risks' warrants consideration of Contention 2 at this time. We believe that this change in information is sufficient to constitute adequate cause for
_3]
late filing of Contention 2 relating to AWTS, in this proceeding.
For the foregoing reasons, we believe that the Board, having previously found that Mr. Doherty has standing to intervene in this matter, should now modify its Order on the basis of new information, grant Mr. Doherty's petition for leave to intervene, and admit Contention 2 as a matter in controversy.
Respectfully submitted, q
,4 A
Stephen M. Schinki Counsel for NRC Staff SSince the contention, having been based on the publication of the Lewis Committee Report, could not have been raised earlier, the Staff believes that it should be viewed as an amendment to Mr. Doherty's original timely filed petition, which amendment is justified by new informa tion.
See Indiana and Michican Electric Comoany (Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-72-25, 5 AEC 13,14 in which the Cormission stated:
'[W]e note our lonastanding oractice of permittinc amend ents to petitions to intervena #or acod cause shoom.
Unless soecial circumstances dictate otherwise in specific circumstances, new information accearino in creviously unavailable documents would cenerally constitute good cause for amendment, assuming of course that the recuest to amend is exceditiously presented and is otherwise procer.
Such determinations rest in the sound discretion of the Licensing Roard.
(emphasis added).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0milSSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY ATID LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER C0"PANY
)
Docket No.
50-466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certi fy that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTION OF J.H.
DOHERTY FOR ADMISSION OF SEVERAL CONTENTIONS PREVIOUSLY ABANDONED DUE TO CLASS 9 ACCIDENT PROHIBITION ON CONTENTIONS BASED ON WASH-1400, REACTOR SAFETY STUDY (RSS)" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in tir United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission inte.rnal mail system, this 6th day of March,1979:
Sheldon J. Wol fe, Esq., Chai rman
- Jack Newman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Lowenstein, Reis, Newnan & Axelrad' Board Panel 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20037 Washington, D. C.
20555 Richard Lowerre, Esq.
Dr. E. Leonard Cheatun Asst. Attorney General for the Route 3, Box 35nA State of Texas Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 P. O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Austin, Texas 78711 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Jerry Sliva, Mayor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission City of Wallis, Texas 77485 Washington, D. C.
20555 Hon. John R. flikeska R. Gordon Gooch, Esq.
Austin County Judge Baker & Botts P. O. Box 310 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Bellville, Texas 77418 Washington, D. C.
20006 Atonic Sa*fety and-Licensi..g J. Grecory Copeland, Esq.
Appeal Board
- Baker & Botts U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Shell Plaza Washington, D. C.
20555 Houston, Texas 77002 m.
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Carro Hinderstein Board Panel
- 8739 Link Terrace U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conriission Houston, Texas 77025 Washington, DC 20555 James Scott, Jr., Esq.
Docketing and Service Section Texas Public Interest Office of the Secretary Research Group, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Box 237 UC Washington, DC 20555 University of Houston Houston, Texas 77004 Mr. John R. Shreffler 5014 Braeburn Brenda A. McCorkle Bellaire, Texas 77401 6!40 Darnell Houston, Texas 77074 e/1 i "0
' Stephen M. Schinki Counsel for NRC Staff e
Y
.*