ML19282C203
| ML19282C203 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Green County  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1979 |
| From: | Cole R, Ferguson G, Goodhope A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903210267 | |
| Download: ML19282C203 (48) | |
Text
ERO PUBLIC DOCUMENT R00lf e
s 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEA REGULATORY COMMISSION y$2 NWitobit' tAAR 9 Atomic Safety and Li Andrew C. Goodhope, Chairman ym,asgjj Dr. Richard F. Cole b
&%@.ag Dr. George A. Ferguson
<b Em'EQ MAR 9 $73 In the Matter of h
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE
)
Docket No. 50-549-CP STATE OF NEW YORK
)
)
(Health and Safety)
(Greene County Nuclear
)
Power Plant)
)
MARCH 9, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER RULING ON MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION The Applicant, Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY), and the NRC Staff have both filed motions for summary dismissal of certain contentions previously allowed for adjudication in this proceeding.
PASNY has moved to dismiss ten such contentions and the NRC Staff has moved to dismiss three contentions which PASNY also included in the ten covered by its motion.
The NRC Staff in a subsequent filing has supported PASNY's motion on the essentials of all ten of the contentions which PASNY moves to be dismissed.
Consequently both of the motions will be considered jointly.
The technical issues discussed in this decision and order include security, site geology, seismic design, missile protection, valve cubmergence, systems separation, aircraft 790321oa%7
2 hazards, external flooding, occupational exposure, exclu-sion area.
Preliminarily it should be pointed out that most of the areas of health and safety brought into issue by the contentions which are the subject of these motions for sum-mary disposition have been the subject of a great deal of testimony already in the record of the joint environmental hearing before this Board and the New York State Public Ser-vice Commission Siting Board.
These hearings are still continuing.
A number of intervenors filed written opposition to the motions for summary disposition by their counsel.
These intervenors are Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley (CPHV),
Columbia County Survival Committee (CCSC), and Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents (MHNO).
Other intervenors who appeared at oral argument on these motions include Cementon Civic Asso-ciation (CCA) and an individual, Mary Berner of Athens, New York.
After oral argument, Mary Berner filed a document opposing both the motions of the Applicant and the NRC Staff.
Other intervenors who filed no answers to the motions and did not appear include Greene County, New York, et al. (GC) and Columbia County, New York.
~
3 Oral argument was held on January 17, 1979 in Albany, New York, and all parties present were heard on the motions at that time.
This Board is issuing this ruling pursuant to its authority granted in 10 CFR S 2.749.
We have kept in mind that in order to grant a motion for summary disposition, the record before us must demonstrate clearly that there is no possibility that there exists a litigable issue of fact.
Where we have been in doubt or felt that parties should bc permitted or required to proceed further than the existing record, we have denied the motions for summary disposition.
Specific Rulings on Motions for Summary Disposition I
Contention - Plant Security Both the NRC Staff and the Applicant have moved for summary disposition of Greene County Stipulated Conten-tion I.A which is as follows:
"I.
The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report ('PSAR') prepared by the Applicant does not provide reasonable assurance, as required by 10 CFR SS 50.35 and 50.40 that (a) the health and safety of the public will not be endangered,
4 and (b) the Applicant is financially qualified to engage in the proposed activities in accordance with the Commission s regulations in the following respects:
"A.
The Applicant has not demonstrated that the pro-posed site is suitable from the point of view of complying with the security requirements of Part 73 of 10 CFR due to the easy access to the site from the Hudson River and the resulting exposed nature."
Greene County failed to answer the motion for summary
~
disposition and failed to appear for oral argument.
The parties who did file responses to the motions or appeared at oral argument opposed the granting of dismissal of this contention.
In support of its motion, the NRC Staff has submitted the affidavit of Michael J. Gaitanis.
In support of its motion, the Applicant has submitted the affidavit of Mario J.
Maltese.
These affidavits establish the following:
1.
Applicant is committed to erecting two chain link fences fifty feet apart around the perimeter of the security area, with electronic surveillance at all times and security force monitoring.
(Maltese Affidavit 1, paragraph 5; Gaitanis Affidavit, page 2.)
2.
All safety related structures, systems and compo-nents are located within the double chain link security fence.
(Maltese Affidavit 1, paragraph 5; Gcitanis Affidavit, page 2.)
5 3.
The physical barriers, electronic and security force surveillance and controlled access proc'e-dures will regulate access to the plant whether the approach is from the water side or land side.
(Maltese Affidavit 1, paragraph 6; Gaitanis Affi-davit, page 2.)
As pointed out by the NRC Staff in their motion, compli-ance with 10 CFR S 73.55 is not required until the operating license stage.
A preliminary discussion of the facility pertaining to protection of vital equipment is all that is required at this stage.
After considering the two affidavits submitted in support of the motions, testimony in the record as to security plans and commitments, and the fact that no intervenor raised any serious question as to the security of the proposed facility, this Board is compelled to grant the motions of the NRC Staff and the Applicant to dismiss this contention from further consideration.
6 II Contention - Adequacy of Site Geology The Applicant has moved for summnry disposition of Greene County Contention I.C and Mid-Hudson Nuclear Oppo-nents Contention 2 (in part).
Intervenoza contend that the site geology is inadequate, that submarine geology under the Hudson River has not been investigated and that geology described in the PSAR is not the geology of the Cementon site.
The specific contentions are as follows.
"The PSAR does not adequately assess the geology of the site and the risk it may impose in terms of nuclear safety in that the impact or possible con-sequences of blasting in the vicinity of the Cementon site has not been adequately evaluated in the PSAR and in that the Power Authority of the State of New York's purported description of the geology of the Cementon site is not, in fact, a description of the site but relates to an area located approximately fifteen miles away."
(Greene County, et al.
unstipulated contention I.C.)
... Neither is the geological data and evaluation sufficient to determine the site's geological suita-bility for nuclear power development.
Submarine geology under the Hudson River has not been adequately investigated and evaluated."
(Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents and Shirley Brand - stipulated contention 2 (in part).)
Applicant's motion for summary disposition addresses the adequacy of site geology and its assessment.
The impact of blasting operations is not considered as part of the
7 motion (Tr. 80-S through 8/ -S).
NRC Staff supports the motion and in support of its position submitted the joint affidavit and incorporated testimony of Donald M. Caldwell and John Kelleher.
Applicant relies upon the affidavit of Mr. John H. Peck.
Intervenors Greene County, et al. neither answered the motion nor appeared at the hearing held for the purpose of oral argument on the motion.
Intervenor Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents opposed the motion.
Applicant proposes the following material facts as to which no genuine issue exists:
1.
Applicant followed all applicable NRC criteria and regulations in geologic and seismologic investigations of the Cementon site.
(Feck Affi-davit 1, item 4) 2.
Applicant assessed the geology of the proposed Greene County Nuclear Power Plant site and not of a location fifteen miles distant.
(Id., items 5 and 6) 3.
Regional and site studies of the geology provided no evidence that capable faulting exists beneath the Hudson River in the vicinity of the site.
(Id., items 7 and 8)
8 4.
The Applicant and NRC Staff determined that the site is geologically acceptable.
(Id.,
items 8 and 9) 5.
The Cementon site is geologically acceptable for construction of the proposed nuclear power plant.
(Id., item 9) 6.
An evaluation of geologic conditions including the Hudson River has been conducted and determined to be essentially the same as the site geology presented in PSAR S 2.5.1 and 2.5.2.
This was determined from review of published geological material and extensive geologic mapping along the river banks.
In addition, borings in the Hudson River in the vicinity of the Cementon site support the interpretation of geologic continuity across the River.
(Id., item 7)
Staff affiants Caldwell and Kelleher reviewed Appli-cant's affidavit on this issue and found it to be consistent with their incorporated testimony (Caldwell and Kelleher Affidavit, item 7).
The Staff concludes that the geologic section beneath the Hudson River is similar to that in the site area.
(Id., item 8)
The Staff admits that no detailed investigations have been carried out regarding the geologic
9 conditions underlying the Hudson River but states however, that an evaluation has been carried out based on regional considerations.
This evaluation leads the Staff to conclude that capable faults do not exist beneath the River.
Staff bases this conclusion on two lines of evidence.
The first is related to the tectonic evolution of the region and the second is the absence of any coherent pattern of seismicity such as is commonly associated with active faulting.
(Caldwell and Kelleher - incorporated testimony, pp. 1-3)
Staff also finds that the PSAR provides an adequate basis for analysis of the geology of the site and that the PSAR does describe the geology of the Cementon site.
(Id., pp. 4, 5)
Intervenors Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents and Shirley Brand argue that "the Applicant's position is based upon proposed testimony, affidavits, and proposed exhibits, all of which are self-serving, and none of which have been sub-ject to cross-examination or tested in the crucible of the hearing process."
(Kafin answer to motion, December 15, 1978,
- p. 2)
Intervenor further argues that the submarine geology under the Hudson River has not been studied, and that you do not know what is there until you look.
Intervenor also points out that the bottom of the Hudson River is within the exclusion zone (Tr. 69-S, 70-S).
Intervenor parallels the
10 instant case with the situation of a west coast nuclear plant (Diablo Canyon) where submarine geology adjacent to the site was not explored and subsequent findings re-vealed a fault (s) (Tr. 72-S, 73-S).
Regarding Greene County, gt al. contention I.C, and specifically with the allegations that the description of the geology is not, in fact, a description of the Cementon site but relates to an area located approximately fifteen miles away, we find no basis for the allegation and accordingly grant Applicant's motion for summary dispo-sition on that specific issue.
The basis for that decision is as follows.
Section 2. 749(b) describes, at least in part, the obligations of opposing parties in summary disposition pro-ceedings.
The pertinent section is as follows:
When a motion for summary decision is made and supported as provided in this section, a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his answer; his answer by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this section must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact.
If no such answer is filed, the decision sought, if appropriate, shall be rendered."
In view of the fact that Greene County, et al. did not file any response, written or oral, and considering the filings, including affidavits and incorporated testimony of
11 both Applicant and Staff, the Board grants summary dispo-sition in the pleadings for Greene County unstipulated contention I.C.
Regarding MHNO stipulated contention 2, the Board concludes that sufficient geologic data and evaluation has been provided to determine the site's geological stability and suitability.
The Board concurs with both Applicant and Staff that the site is geologically acceptable for placement of a nuclear power plant.
The only question remaining concerns the submarine geology under the Hudson River and whether the information provided by Applicant and Staff are sufficient to support the interpretation of geologic continuity across the River.
It is this question which will be addressed at the evidentiary hearing.
Accordingly, Applicant's motion on MHNO stipulated contention 2 is granted, in part, and denied, in part.
12 III Contention - Seismic Design The Applicant has moved for summary disposition of Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents contention 2 (part) and Cementon Civic Association contention I.C., and Columbia County con-tention 6, and Columbia County Survival Committee contention 8.
Intervenors contend that the seismic design of the proposed facility is inadequate in that the ground accelera-tion associated with the proposed safe shutdown earthquake (i.e., 0.2 g) has been underestimated and the impact of the extensive quarrying operations on geologic stability and seismic design has not been fully assessed.
The specific contentions are as follows:
" Petitioners contend that the seismic design of the proposed facility is inadequate in that ithe ground acceleration associated with the Applicant's proposed safe shutdown earth-quake (i.e., 0. 2 g) has been underestimated."
(Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents and Shirley Brand, stipulated contention 2, part)
"The petitioner contends that the Staff and Applicant have failed to fully assess the geological data and evaluation sufficiently to determine the site's geological stability, particularly with regard to the extensive quarrying operations of the three local and contiguous cement plants."
(Cementon Civic Association, stipulated contention I.C.)
13 "The petitioner contends that there has been an insufficient evaluation of the effects of quarrying and placement of large amounts of earth on the stability of subterranean geologic formations."
(Columbia County, stipulated contention 6)
" Petitioner contends that the Applicant's PSAR has not adequately considered the susceptibility of the site to earthquakes."
(Arthur Reuter and Columbia County Survival Commituce, stipulated contention 8)
Applicant's motion on the above contentions relates to seismic design and the effects of quarrying and dis-placement of large amounts of earth on the stability of subterranean geologic formations.
The impact of blasting operations at the quarries was not considered as part of the Applicant's motion (Tr. 83-S).
Applicant relies on the affidavit of John H. Peck (Affidavit No. 2) and contends the following:
1.
Applicant followed all applicable NRC criteria and regulations in determining the Safe Shutdown Earthquake ("SSE").
(Peck Affidavit 2, items 4 and 5) 2.
The maximum earthquake postulated on the site has a ground acceleration of 0.12 g.
(Peck Affi-davit 2, item 5)
14 3.
The SSE for the Greene County plant has a design value of 0.2 g.
(Peck Affidavit 2, item 5) 4.
The NRC Staff concluded that the 0.2 g value for the SSE is adequate.
(Peck Affidavit 2, items 6 and 7) 5.
The Applicant performed geologic investigations of the quarries and the relationship between seismic activity and quarrying.
(Peck Affi-davit 2, item 8) 6.
Seismic activity has been noted at Wappingers Falls and none has been found at Cementon.
(Peck Affidavit 2, items 9 and 10) 7.
The Wappingers Falls area is geologically dissimilar from Gementon.
(Peck Affidavit 2, items 9 and 11) 8.
Quarrying operations would not produce a seismic event which would exceed the SSE; minor earth-quakes, if induced by quarrying at all, would not realistically constitute a safety hazard.
(Peck Affidavit 2, items 9, 10 and 11)
15 In support of Applicant's motion, the NRC Staff filed the affidavit of John Kelleher with incorporated supple-mental testimony entitled " Safe Shutdown Earthquake and Relationship of Quarrying to Seismicity".
Mr. Kelleher states that he has reviewed Applicant's affidavit on seismic design (Affidavit No. 2 of John H. Peck) and concludes that it is consistent with his own testimony.
NRC Staff contends, in its Safety Evaluation Report (SER, S 2.5), that based upor.
their review the proposed value of 0.2 g is adequate when used with the Regulatory Guide 1.60 design spectra.
(Kelleher incorporated testimony, p. 3, lines 9-11)
In arriving at that conclusion, the Staff considers the following factors (id., lines 13-24).
1.
No capable faults have been identified in the vicinity of the site; thus there is no reason to expect earthquake activity to be localized near the site.
2.
The tectonic provinces shown by Rodgers-1/ are acceptable as a basis for evaluating the proposed earthquake design basis.
3.
The historic seismicity of the site egion differs markedly from the southern sector of 1/
Rodgers, John, "The Tectonics of the Appalachians",
Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1970.
~
16 of the cactonic province (Valley and Ridge) within which it is located.
4.
The effects of quarrying (possible induced seismicity due to loading and unloading of various areas) are well within the proposed design limits.
Staff Affiant Kelleher discusses the Wappingers Falls, New York earthquake, citing Pomeroy and others-2/ who con-cluded that the 3.3 magnitude earthquake at Wappingers Falls may have been triggered by crustal unloading associated with quarrying operations in the presence of high horizontal compressive stress.
It was pointed out, however, that the stress changes involved in the off-loading are small compared to the failure strength of rocks or in relation to the regional stress conditions so that the Wappingers Falls area must have been in a condition close to failure.
Simple stress calculations made by Pomeroy and others (id., p. 695) indicate that under special circumstances off-loading may trigger the release of stored regional tectonic stress, but in the absence of such stored stress there is not significant 2/
Pomeroy, Paul W., Simpson, David N.,
and Sbar, Marc L., " Earthquakes Triggered by Surface Quarrying -
The Wappingers Falls, New York Sequence of June 1974",
Bulletin of The Seismological Society of America, Volume 66, pp. 685-700, June 1976.
17 energy in the off-loading process to cause a significant earthquake.
Applicant and Staff both state that the geo-logic conditions in the Cementon area are different from those in the Wappingers Falls area.
Wappingers Falls has a history of seismic activity while the Applicant's study of the Cementon area reveals to seissicity in the historical record in the vicinity of the quarries.
On that basis both Applicant and Staff conclude that no potential seismic event induced by quarrying (off-loading of materials) would exceed the SSE derived from consideration of regional tectonics.
A review of the Pomeroy, eti al., article on the Wappingers Falls events, however, reveals that prior to quarrying opera <
tions the historic record showed essentially no seismic activity in the Wappingers Falls area.
A pertinent portion i
of the conclusion section of the article is as follows:
"The historic record shows essentially no activity in the area prior to commencement of quarrying operations and a pattern of low intensity seismic activity occurring infrequently after the quarrying began.
(Pomeroy, et al.. n. 697)
18 The Board has reviewed the filings including cited references and transcript-3/ and concludes that there is sufficient doubt as to the dissimilari y of Cementon and Wappingers Falls that it cannot grant Applicant's motion.
-3/
During oral argument, Mr. John Nickolitch representing the Cementon Civic Association, referred to summer 1973 newspaper accounts of earth tremors felt at Catskill, and questioned whether such events were taken into account.
Mr Nickolitch said that he found no mention of the event either in the PSAR or in Mr. Peck's Affidavit (Tr. 19-S, 20-S).
Applicant re'c_tted this argument by stating that the specific event referred to by Mr.
Nickolitch occurred some 263 miles away from the site and is listed on page 3 of PSAR Table 2.5.2-4 (June 15, 1973 magnitude 5.2 with intensity of III as determined by local accounts).
(Tr. 75-S)
Applicant stated that the event was considered and did not alter the conclusion reached (Tr. 75-S).
19 IV Contention - Missile Protection The Applicant has moved for summary disposition of Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley contention I.B.2.
This motion has been supported by the NRC Staff.
Intervenor has opposed the Applicant's motion.
Stipulated contention T.B.2 states:
"B.
The PSAR is deficient with regard to its description and analysis of the following design features or principal safety con-siderations as required by 10 CFR 50.34:
"2.
The adequacy of missile protection design to meet Commission criteria such as the genera-tion of pump flywheel missiles by reactor coolant pump overspeed."
In moving for summary disposition of this contention, Applicant relies on Affidavit No. 1 of William Willoughby II, and asserts the following material facts es to which there is no genuine issue to be heard:
1.
The Applicant has addressed all applicable NRC criteria for missile protection in the PSAR and in response to NRC Staff questions.
(Willoughby Affidavit 1, paragraphs 4, 7 and 8)
20 2.
The plant missile protection design objectives are in conformance with applicable NRC design criteria.
(Id., paragraphs 8 and 10) 3.
The Applicant identified those safety components which must be protected from nissiles.
(Id.,
paragraph 5) 4.
The Applicant has designed missile barriers to safeguard safety related equipment.
(Id., para-graphs 4 and 9) 5.
Documents submitted by the Applicant demonstrate that proper protection of safety components against all missiles will be provided.
(Id., paragraph 6) 6.
The potential for missile generation from the reactor coolant pump flywheels is an acceptably low probability event.
(Id., paragraphs 7 and 10) 7.
Reactor coolant pump flywheels are designed to comply with applicable NRC criteria.
(Id., para-graphs 7 and 10) 8.
The NRC Staff concluded that plart safety related systems and ccaponents will be acequately protected against all missile damage.
(Id., paragraph: 4, A
9 and 10)
21 The NRC Staff supports the Applicant's motion with respect to this contention relying on the affidavits of James J. Watt (No. 1), Marcus Greenberg, Felix Litton and Frank Rinaldi.
The affidavit of Litton specifically addresses loss of integrity of the reactor coolant pump flywheel and concludes that the measures taken at th:
Greene County Nuclear Plant to ensure integrity of the reactor coolant pump flywheel satisfy the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.14.
This compliance provided a basis acceptable to the Staff for satisfying Criterion 4, " Environ-mental and Missile Design Basis" of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50.
This compliance notwithstanding, Litton notes that a generic review is being conducted of flywheel over-speed conditions.
In the event results of the review indi-cate additional safety measures are required, post construc-tion permit design changes will be made to ensure that an acceptable safety margin is maintained.
The affidavits of Watt, Greenberg and Rinaldi address, respectively, protective measures against interne'ly generated missiles inside the containment, internally generated missiles outside the con-tainment and the adequacy of barrier protection against missiles.
Each witness has affirmed that the design of the proposed facility is in compliance with the requirements as stated in General Design Criterion 4 and, hence, acceptable for the construction pernit stage.
22 Intervenor CPHV opposes the Applicant's motion for summary disposition.
Intervenor acknowledges that the
" Applicant's position [on the issue raised by this conten-tion] is based upon hundreds of pages of proposed testimony, affidavits and proposed exhibits following negotiations between the Applicant and the NRC Staff, [in which] each issue has been addressed by design modifications which will mitigate the adverse health and safety consequences described by the contentions."
Intervenor does not accept this approach and desires a public hearing in order to subject this issue to the " crucible of the hearing process".
The Board is not persuaded by Intervenor's arguments in opposition to this motion and is of the opinion that the Applicant and the NRC Iff have satisfactorily addressed the issue of the adequacy ot' the design of the proposed Greene County Nuclear Power Plant relative to missile protection.
Sufficient information has been provided to give reasonable assurance that the final design will conform to the design bases with an adcquate margin for safety.
This information has been provided in the PSAR, SER and Supplement No. 1 of the SER.
The Board nc tes that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission identified missile e ffects as a safety issue and undertook to reevaluate design criteria for the barriers used as protection from missiles.-4/
4/
Report to Congress "Idertification of Unresolved Safety Issues Relating to Nuclear Power Plants", NUREG-0510, Office af Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear Regu-latory oommission, January 1979.
23 It is believed that current criteria are conservative and provide substantial safety margins which have led the Com-mission to categorize missile effects to have a negligible risk potential (id., p. 34).
Upon review of arguments, with exhibits, by the Appli-cant and the NRC Staff in support of this motion, and absent any substantial evidence from Intervenors in oppo-sition, the Board grants the Applicant's motion for summary disposition.
Contention - Valve Submergence The Applicant has moved for summnry disposition of Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley (CPHV) contention I.B.4.
This motion has been supported by the NRC Staff.
Stipulated contention I.B.4 states:
"B.
The PSAR is deficient with regard to its description and analysis of the following design features or principal safety con-siderations as required by 10 CFR 50.34:
"4.
The likelihood that valves designed to miti-gate accident consequences may become submerged during operation of the Emergency Core Cooling System.
The Applicant relies on Affidavit No. 2 of William Willoughby II in its motion and ascerts the following:
1.
The Applicant described in the PSAR the methods used in plant design to ensure that all valve and valve motors within containment required to mitigate the consequences of an accident will not be submerged during ECCS operation.
(Willoughby Affidavit 2, paragraph 5)
25 2.
The design basis for prevention of submergence is in compliance with applicable NRC criteria.
(Id., paragraphs 5 and 8) 3.
Safety related valves and valve motors within containment will be located at elevations above postulated water levels.
(Id., paragraph 6) 4.
The passive devices incorporated into the design assure that water from reactor coolant system and containment spray will drain properly.
(Id.,
paragraph 7) 5.
The NRC Staff has determined that the information supplied by the Applicant resolves the subj ect of this contention at the construction permit stage.
(Id., paragraph 8)
In supporting the Applicant's motion for summary dispo-sition of this contention, the NRC Staff relies upon the assurance given by the Applicant that no safety related valve or valve motors, located inside the containment, will be sub-merged following a loss-of-coolant accident, this being accomplished by locating valve motors above the maximum possible water level.
e
26 Intervenors (CPHV) have provided no basis for their assertion that valves may become submerged.
The Board notes that the final plant design will be reviewed for conformance at the operational license-stage to verify that the Applicant complies with pre-construction assurances.
It is the opinion of the Board that valves which are located above the maximum possible water level are unlikely to be submerged.
We find no triable issue here.
The Applicant's motion for summary disposition is granted.
27 VI Contention - Systems Separation The Applicant has moved for summary disposition of Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley contention I.B.S.
The NRC Staff supports this motion.
Contention I.B.5 states:
"B.
The PSAR is deficient with regard to its descrip-tion and analysis of the following design features or principal safety considerations as required by 10 CFR 50.34:
"5.
The adequacy of the physical separation of redundant safety systems, especially electrical systems, will nct be sufficient in ensuring the
' single failure criterion' (i.e.,
that a failure in one part of a safety s
[its]
redundant counterpart)'." ystem will not affect Affidavit No. 3 of William Willoughby II, in support of Applicant's motion for summary disposition of this con-tention, affirms that:
1.
Physical separation of safety related electrical systems is assessed and design criteria are pro-vided in the PSAR.
(Willoughby Affidavit 3, para-graphs 4 and 8) 2.
Physical separation of other safety related systems is discussed in PSAR Sections 3.5, 3.6.5 and in the Greene County Nuclear Power Plant Fire Protection Program and Fire Hazards Analysis.
(Id., para-graphs 4 and 8)
28 3.
Appropriate design criteria have been selected to ensure proper protection of safety related systems against fires, floods, missiles, LOCA and effects of high energy pipes.
(Id., para-graphs 5 and 7) 4.
NRC Staff has concluded that NRC criteria for separation and protection of safety systems, including electrical systems have been met.
(Id., paragraphs 6 and 8) 5.
A single failure occurring in one safety related train will not cause the loss of function of its redundant counterpart.
(Id., paragraph 7)
The NRC Staff, in support of the Applicant's motion, proffers the affidavits of Spottswood B.
Burwell and Joseph P. Joyce.
This testimony is supplemental to infor-mation on this issue contained in the SER and affirms that, after review of the design information provided in the PSAR, the Staff finds that the Anplicant is committed to develop and follow sufficient design criteria for physical separation of redundant safety related electrical systems to assure that the single failure criterion can be satisfied.
29 The Board notes that systems interactions in nuclear power plants have been categorized by the NRC as a poten-tially high risk item (NUkEG-0510, page A-12.
See footnote 4, supra, for complete reference).
While the NRC Staff believes that its review procedures and safety criteria provide reasonable assurance of independence required for safety, it has initiated a task force to confirm that present procedures adequately account for potentially unde-sirable interactions.
The Board is of the opinion that current NRC studies on this topic relate to Intervenor's concerns.
We will hear evidence on this issue.
Applicant's motion for summary disposition is denied.
30 VII Contention - Aircraft Hazards Analysis Both the NRC Staff and the Applicant have moved for summary disposition of Columbia County Survival Committee and Arthur L. Reuter, stipulated contention 5A.
This con-tention is as follows-
"The site is unsuitable by reason of its lying in an air corridor for international air travel.
The Hudson River is a regular corridor for international air travel.
Moreover, the Cementon site is in the flight pattern for practice runs from Westover (Mass.) Air Force Base.
It is obviously exposed to particular hazard."
In support of their motion, the NRC Staff refers to filed testimony of Jacques B. J. Read of the NRC Staff.
Dr. Read's testimony establishes.
1.
That there are no significant airstrips within five miles of the site and that no other airports are situated close enough to constitute identifiable hazard to the site.
2.
That the nearest military practice activity is 53 miles away.
3.
That there are no flying activities from Westover Air Force Base over or within ten miles of the site.
31 4.
That there is agreement between the NRC and Department of Defense preventing any training flights from approaching operating nuclear power plants.
5.
That the nearest Federal airway passes six miles from the site.
6.
That the Jet Route System for international air travel from New York to Europe routes flights over Long Island Sound about 100 miles to the east of the plant site.
7.
That the NRC Staff has utilized its standard methods for determining whether a site is exposed to an unacceptably high risk from an airplane crash and concluded that no such risk exists at the p'roposed plant, and that the methods used have ~3een approved by the Appeal Board in Metro-politan Edison Company (Three Mile Island, Unit 2),
ALAB-486, 8 NRC 9 (1978).
Based upon this testimony, the NRC Staff concludes that there are no unacceptable hazards from any aircraft activity.
32 The Applicant relies upon the affidavit No. 1 of Andrew W. Barchas and comes to the same conclusion as the NRC Staff.
The intervenors have not filed any evidence in support of their contention but argue that many planes have been observed to fly over the proposed site or nearby and that, if given a chance, they can demonstrate that the risk of a plane crash into the proposed site is indeed quite high (Tr. 53-S).
They will be given an opportunity to present such evidence.
Consequently, the motions of the NRC Staff and the Applicant for summary dismissal of this contention are denied.
33 VIII Contention - External Flooding The Applicant and the NRC Staff have moved for summary disposition of Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley (CPHV) contention I.B.l.
Intervenors contend that Applicants have not adequately described and analyzed the plant design with respect to external flooding phenomena.
Contention I.B.1 states.
"I.
The Preliminary Safety Analysi.
eport ('PSAR')
prepared by the Applicant does not provide reasonable cssurance, as required by 10 CFR SS 50.35 ano s0.40 that (a) the health and safety of the public will not be endangered, and (b) the Applicant is financially qualified to engage in the proposed activities in accordance with the Commission's regulations in the following respects:5/
"B.
The PSAR is deficient with regard to its description and analysis of the following design features or principal safety con-siderations as required by 10 CFR 50.34:
"1.
Plant design with respect to external flooding phenom.na."
The Applicant relies upon the affidavit of Andrew W.
Barchas (Affidavit No. 2).
The NRC Staff relies upon the affidavits and incorporated testimony of Gale P. Turi and Marcus Greenberg.
Intervenors oppose the motion and further contend that the Applicant and Staff have misapplied
-5/
Financial qualifications are not considered to be part of Applicant's or Staff's motion for summary disposition in the pleadings.
34 Regulatory Guide 1.59 (" Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 2",
August 1977) and failed to understand accurately the nature cf the Hudson River.
Intervenors contend that the wrong design basis was used (Tr. 29-S) and it is well within reasonable probabilities for an east coast hurricane to blow inland causing both an inland probable maximum river flood, a probable maximum surge at the ocean and upstream dam failures.
Intervenors admit they have no engineering expertise but take the posi-tion that these are questions about which reasonable men can disagree and that they should be permitted to have an open dialogue in a public forum to test the various opinions and judgments put forward by Applicant and Staff (Tr. 26-S, 27-S).
Applicant proposes the following material facts as to which no genuine issue exists:
1.
The Applicant in the PSAR has assessed and analyzed external flooding phenomena for the determination of design water levels at the site.
These analyses are presented in the PSAR.
(Barchas Affidavit 2, item 6)
4 4
4<>%%
4
$+#.
V.+
4 imieE evituariOs TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 l:u m en uru p"=
E ELt l,l hIU hb l
1.8 1.25 1.4 I 1.6 I
4 6"
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART
- 4 4$+4
?,
'hk$
- Qn,,//
>///
Y-
\\
_.--_s
.m..
4+9@%
$g&
+
%4
\\\\\\\\!
IMAGE EVALUATION NNN TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 Fmen fll HE I.I
[" E l
1.8
--2 l 1.25 I IA 1.6 l
l 6"
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART 4*o%
/+4
- $fn,/
Ask;b.ffb b/
s Y.
I 4
a t
m.-_._.
35 2.
The external flooding analyses were conducted in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.59, " Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants".
(Id.,
items 6 and 7) 3.
The external flooding analyses correctly con-siders combinations by hydrometeorological and seismic events which were selected in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.59.
(Id., items 7, 8 and 12) 4.
The plant is designed such that no safety related system or component will be affected by external flooding events.
(Id., items 13, 14 and 15) 5.
The combination of the most severe natural phenomena and seismic events as asserted by CPHV ic so improbable as not to require con-siderction.
(Id., items 9, 10 and 11) 6.
The NRC Staff evaluated external flooding events and plant design and concluded that 10 CFR S 50.34 and General Design Criterion 2 are satisfied.
(Id., item 7)
36 The NRC Staff proposes the following as their list of material facts as to which there is no genuine issue to be heard:
1.
The Greene County Nuclear Power Plant will be located at an elevation of 30 feet, mean sea livel (msl).
(Incorporated testimony of Turi and Greenberg, p. 4, line 17) 2.
The maximum flood level on the Hudson River will be 28.5 feet msl.
(Id., p. 3, line 9) 3.
The occurrence or probable maximum precipitation in the area is estimated to result in a maximum water level of 30.2 feet msl, which was used by the Applicant as the controlling design basis flood elevation of external flooding.
(Id., p. 4, lines 7-12) 4.
The Applicant has committed itself in the PSAR to protect from flooding all safety related systems and components required for safe shutdown or for miti-gation of the consequences of an accident by locating them in seismic category I buildings with all access to these structures being six inches above plant grade
37 (30.5 feet ms1).
(Id., p. 4, line 20 through p. 5, line 3) 5.
All construction joints which may be required to resist water pressure will have water stops.
(Id., p. 5, lines 3-6) 6.
Applicant has represented that penetrations of the service water lines of the annulus building will be sealed to prevent in-leakage.
(Id.,
- p. 5, lines 10-12) 7.
Applicant has also represented that the annulus and containment structures will have a continuous waterproof membrane below grade.
In addition, any potential in-leakage due to cracks in the annulus building walls or leaking water stops will be collected in sumps and pumped out.
(Id.,
p. 5, lines 13-16)
Applicant and Staff each describe the combinations of hydrometeorological and seismic events which were selected and used in the external flooding analysis as design basis events in accordance with criteria presented in Regulatory Guide l.59 and in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N 170-1976.
The five (5) design basis events were:
38 1.
Combination of a Probable Maximum Flood-6/
on the Hudson River and a 25-year hurricane surge at The Battery; 7/
2.
Combination of a Standard Project Flood on the Hudson River coincident with the seismic failure of dams and the mean tidal stagec at The Battery; 3.
Combination of a 25-year flood on the Hudson 8/
River and a Probable Maximum Hurricane-at The Battery; 6/
The Probable Maximum Flood is the hypothetical flood (peak discharge, volume and hydrograph shape) that is considered to be the most severe reasonably possible, based on comprehensive hydrometeorological application of probable maximum precipitation and other hydrologic factors favorable for maximum flood runoff such as sequential ctorms and snowmelt.
7/
The Standard Project Flood is a hypothetical flood that is produced by the critical concentrations of runoff from the most severe combination of precipitation (and snowmelt, if pertinent) that is considered " reasonably characteristic" of the drainage area involved.
8/
The Probable Maximum Hurricane is a hypothetical hurri-cane having that combination of characteristics which will make it the most severe that can reasonably occur in the particular region involved.
The hurricane should approach the point under study along a critical path and at an optimum rate of movement which will result in most adverse flooding.
39 4.
Combination of the Standard Proj ect Flood on the Hudson River and the Standard Project 9/
Hurricane-surge at The Battery; and 5.
The Probable Maximum Precipitation--10/
at the site.
Both the Applicant and Staff agree that design basis event No. 1 produces the maximum flood level on the Hudson River at the plant site.
Applicant estimates the probable maximum water elevation at 28.5 feet, mean sea level (a maximum stillwater lesal of 25 feet plus 3.5 feet wind wave effect).
(Barchas Affidavit 2, p. 5; see also SER, pp. 2-15)
The Staff independently estimated the flood level produced
--9/
The Standard Project Hurricane is a hypothetical hurri-cane intended to represent the most severe combination of hurricane parameters that is reasonably characteristic of a specified region, excluding extremely rare com-binations.
It is further assumed that the SPH would approach a given project site from such direction, and at such rate of movement as to produce the highest hurri-cane surge hydrograph, considering pertinent hydraulic characteristics of the area.
--'0/
The Probable Maximum Precipitation is the estimated depth for a given duration, drainage area, and time of year for which there is virtually no risk of exceedance.
The probable maximum precipitation for a given duration and drainage area approaches and approximates the maxi-mum which is physically possible within the limits of contemporary hydrometeorological knowledge and techniques.
40 by a Probable Maximum Flood on the Hudson River and the 25-year hurricane surge and without providing their esti-mates, concluded that the Applicant's estimate is acceptable.
Design basis event No. 5, the Probable Maximum Precipi-tation will, according to both Applicant and Staff, result in a maximum water buildup of 0.23 feet above plant grade.
(Barchas Affidavit 2, p.
5; and Turi, Greenberg supplemental testimony, p. 4)
Plant grade is at 30.0 feet msl.
(Barchas Affidavit 2, p. 5)
Applicant states that no safety related systems and components required for safe shutdown would be flooded since they are all located in Seismic Category I buildings with all doors and access openings at least six inches above plant grade.
(Ibid.)
The Staff and the Applicant contend that the combination of events selected as design basis events is reasonable and in accordance with the guidelines and regulations of the Commission.
The Board agrees that the selection of events against which the plant is designed is sufficiently conserva-tive that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered.
The Board also agrees that the combination of events proposed by Intervenor CPHV (at Tr. 31-S, lines 22-24) is so unlikely to occur that it would be unreasonable to require
41 that combination as a design basis.
Accordingly, the Board finds no genuine issue of material fact to be heard and grants Applicant's and NRC Staff's motions on CPHV stipulated contention I.B.l.
42 IX Contention - Occupational Exposure Intervenors contend that Applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that it will meet the occupational exposure criteria in 10 CFR 20.
Stipulated contention I.B.6 is raised by Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley (CPHV) in this proceeding.
Subpart B.6 states:
~"B.
The PSAR is deficient with regard to its description and analysis of the following design features or principal safety con-siderations as required by 10 CFR 50.34:
"6.
The ability or adequacy of plans for maintenance of equipment containing radio-cobalt buildup to meet occupational radiological criteria set forth in 10 CFR Part 20."
Applicant contends that it has satisfied all applicable requirements and in support of its motion for summnry dis-position offers the Affidavit of Andrew W. Barchas (Barchas Affidavit No. 3).
The NRC Staff supports Applicant's motion and relies upon the affidavit of Thomas D. Murphy.
Applicant proposes the following material facts as to which no genuine issue exists-1.
Applicant has developed a program consistent with the applicable NRC criteria for radiation
43 protection of occupational workers.
(Barchas Affidavit 3, item 5) 2.
Applicant presented a program which will ensure that doses to workers will be as low as reasonably achievable.
(Id., items 5 and 7) 3.
The plant is designed with specific considera-tion to the exposure of workers performing maintenance on plant equipment.
(Id., items 6 and 13) 4.
The plant radiation protection program and plant design provides reasonable assurance that the occupational radiation dose is within the applicable NRC criteria and is as low as reasonably achievable.
(Id., item 8) 5.
Specific measures taken to limit cobalt content in reactor coolant system materials are described in the PSAR.
(Id., item 9) 6.
Applicant provides reasonable assurance that occupational exposures from radio-cobalt buildup during plant maintenance will satisfy NRC regula-tory criteria.
(Id., items 10, 11 and 12)
s 44 7.
The NRC Staff concluded that corrosion product induced radiation fields should net exceed those presently experienced in operating reactors and that occupational exposures will be within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20.
(Id., items 8 and 11)
The NRC Staff affiant Thomas D. Murphy independently reviewed Affidavit No. 3 of Andrew W. Barchas, and found that affidavit to be consistent with his own testimony 11/
which was incorporated by reference.-- (Thomas D. Murphy, p.
2, item 5)
Intervenors oppose the motion contending that occu-pational exposure is a very serious problem, that the agreement reached between Staff and Applicant on this par-ticular issue is based upon the promise of an acceptable design, and in intervenors' view, that falls far short of what is required at this stage in the pr > cess (Tr. 99-S, 100-S).
Intervenor also points out that the SER itself identifies the deficiency: --12/
11/ " Supplemental Testimony of NRC Staff In Response to Citizens to Preserve The Hudson Valley, Stipulated Contention I.B. 6 (Occupational Exposure)", by Thomas D. Murphy, incorporated by reference in Affidavit of Thomas D. Murphy, p. 1, item 4.
12/
Tr. 101-S, 102-S.
e 45 "The applicant has not presented an acceptable design stage dose assessment nor has the applicant shown that he used such a dose assessment to evaluate the plant radiation protection design and program.
Also, further design work remains to be done on the primary shielding of the reactor vessel and the shielded entrance labyrinths of cubicles containing radioactive sources which may influence our conclusions on their effectiveness."
(SER, p. 12-1, paragraph 3)
Staff affiant Murphy states, and Applicant apparently concurs, that activated corrosion products have been shown to be a major source of occupational radiation exposure at operating nuclear power plants.
Cobalt 60 has been shown to be the significant isotope contributing to the radiation levels around reactor coolant and auxiliary system components (incorporated testimony of T. Murphy, p. 2).
The NRC Staff initially suggested a specification value of 0.1%
maximum residual cobalt content (Co-59, the precursor of Co-60) for materials in contact with coolant for the Greene County Nuclear Power Station.
Applicant PASNY argues that such a specification would incr2ase material costs up to 5% and would not reduce cobalt values currently experienced.
NRC Staff agrees that the increased cost will not provide commensurate exposure reduction benefits.
Regarding the use of high cobalt bearing alloys, such as Stellite, Appli-cant considers that the superior wear characteristics, com-patibility with reactor coolant, and low exposed surface
s 46 area argue'for the selection of Stellite over other alloys.
The NRC Staff agrees with Applicant's position at this time on the basis that Applicant uses high cobalt bearing alloys onc,
.n areas where surfacing is required.
(Id.,
pp. 2 and 3)
Staff affiant Murphy describes several features of Applicant's design and radiation protection program which he states is consistent with Staff's a ceptance criteria of Regulatory Guide 8.8 and demonstrates that Applicant has adequate plans to protect workers in compli-ance with the standards for radiation protection contained in 10 CFR Part 20.
The Board is of the opinion that there is sufficient question concerning the resolution of this contention to warrant ventilation in the adversary process.
The motion of Applicant for summary disposition is therefor. denied.
w 47
~
X Contention - Exclusion Area The Applicant has moved for partial summary disposition of the contention 1.A of Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley (first sentence of subpart A).
This contention is as follows:
"A.
The PSAR does not include sufficient information to insure that the Applicant can control all land within the exclusion area as required bv 10 CFR Part 100.
(Furthermore, the Applicants subse-quent request to decrease the size of exclusion area will cause the dose standards of 10 CFR Part 100 to be exceeded unless unapproved meteorological models are to be employed, or plant design changed.)"
The Applicant has moved that the first sentence of this contention be summarily dismissed from further consideration.
In support, the Applicant has demonstrated that it can control all activities in the land portion of the exclusion area since it has legal power to acqu_ ire and control such land (Pratt Affidavit 1).
In its response to Applicant's motion, the NRC Staff agrees with this statement in section 2.1.2 of the SER Supplement No. 1 and consequently supports the Applicant's motion.
At oral argument, counsel for CPHV conceded that PASNY has the authority to obtain title to and control of the neces-sary land (Tr. lil-S).
48 There being no issue of material fact presented, the Applicant's limited motion for summary disposition of this contentien is granted.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD (w ___ :
j W e.
- tW W Geo ge AI. Fergusohl Richard F. Cole Andrew C. Goodhope, Chairttiin Dated at Bethesda, Maryland This 9th day of March 1979.