ML19305E157
| ML19305E157 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1980 |
| From: | Linenberger G, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Doherty J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, TEXAS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004230055 | |
| Download: ML19305E157 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
N DOCKETED THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 6
usNRC
.Q, Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire, Chairman APR 1 i1980 > {
Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum, Member 9
omco of tie SW J
g %%#
Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr., Member 9d In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-466 CP (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
ORDER (April 10, 1980) 1.
On March 12, 1980, John Doherty, an intervening party filed, in substance, a request for leave to file out-of-time Contention 47. Applicant and the NRC Staff respectively responded on March 27 and April 1, 1980.
The Contention asserts (1) that Applicant's main generator turbine is not designed conservatively enough to prevent turbine missiles from damag-ing critical components of the plant, and (2) that stoppage or vibration of the turbine will damage the turbine and the main steam power train,cf the pl ant.
Supporting bases for the contention are two recent (1980) Board Notification reports regarding turbine wheel degradation and two recent (1980) reports of operating plant incidents involving turbine wheel problems.
Mr. Doherty has shown good cause for failure to file the instant s l
proposed contention in a timely manner - the cited documents bear dates sub-l
{
sequent to the cut-off date for the filing of contentions. There are no other means to protect the intervenor's interest, several contentions,0f this party have been admitted previously and his participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record, his interest will not be represented by existing parties, and since (as ordered below) discovery must be initiated and
~
0 0 0 4 2 3 LDY o
/.
completed within the same time period allowed for previously admitted conten-tions, his participation will not delay the proceeding. Thus, Mr. Doherty has satisfied the five factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. !i 2.714(a).
Applicant and Staff reconinend the rejection of the contention.
Applicant opposes for three reasons - timeliness (as discussed above), lack of a nexus between the cited new infonnation and the design of the ACNGS, and lack of h basis for challenging the adequacy of its and Staff's analysis of turbine missile protection in the ACNGS.
Staff does not address the timeliness factor.
It opposes the contention for basically the same two technical reasons offered by Applicant.
Further, Staff points out that the SER, Supp. 2, finds f
the probability of a turbine missile causing an accidental release of radio-activity to be acceptably low. We find it significant that both parties fail to address the second part of the contention.
We do not consider the technical merits of the arguments advanced by Applicant and Staff in opposition to the first part of this contention and Mr. Doherty has set forth supportive bases, Further, as noted above, Appli-cant and Staff have failed to address the second part of this contention -
that stoppage or vibration of the turbine will damage it and the power train of the plant.
Accordingly, the contention is admitted as a litigable issue.
Discovery upon Doherty Contention 47 shall be initiated immediately and be completed within one hundred and twenty days after the service of our previous Order dated March 10, 1980.
~
2.
On March 14, 1980, TexPirg filed a Motion For Amer.dment And Consoli-dation Of Contention.
Staff's Response of March 27, 1980, supported the instant motion.
e
i b
O r
j 4 [
I I
The instant motion is granted.
The wording of TexPirg's Addf-tional Contention 54 (so renumbered by the Board) is amended to conform with f
that of Doherty Contention 41, and TexPirg's Additional Contention 54 is i
consolidated with Doherty Contention 41. Mr. Doherty shall present evidence, i
cross-examine, and submit the briefs, proposed findings of fact, conclusions j
of law and argument upon said consolidated contentions.
j 3.
On March 18, 1980, Mr. Doherty filed a Motion To Permit 'One 5:?
f Of Request For Admissions From Applicant For His Contentions (amended) 20, i
25,(amended) 26, 30, 31 32, 40, 41, 43 and 44. Applicant responded on l
March 26, 1980.
i i
The aforementioned contentions had been admitted by the Board pursuant to a stipulation during the course of the special prehearing conference j
i 1
held between October 15 and October 19, 1979. During said conference (Tr.1623),
i we ordered that Mr. Doherty (and certain other parties) initiate discovery as 1
of October 22, 1979 and complete discovery within ~120 days of that date. The
,I instant motion is, in effect, a motion for reconsideration of our Order of j
2 February 29, 1980, wherein we nad denied Mr. Doherty's Motion To Extend Dis-l covery Beyond The 120 Day Limit filed on February 8,1980, because, among other reasons, he had failed to show good cause for being unable to complete l
l I
discovery by the due date of February 20, 1980. The instant motion is denied l
because, once again, this intervening party fails to show good cause why he did not file in a timely manner this request for admissions before the expira-tion date for discovery.
Indeed, he concedes the absence of good cause in l
stating that this further request for admissions was "not sent out because this Intervenor had scheduled insufficient time".
j
?
l
. 4.
On March 18, 1980, Mr. Doherty filed a Second Motion To Compel Discovery From Applicant. Applicant filed its Response on March 31, 1980.
The instant motion re:
Items C and F is denied. The interroga-tories referred to in these two Items relate to Contention 13 - blockage of recirculated ECCS cooling water by dislodged thermal shielding and insulation materials. Applicant's initial objections of vagueness and its assertion of lack of knowledge are well taken because the tenns used were not identified or explained. Applicant's response is also well taken in that Mr. Doherty's purported clarification by adverting to drywell drains does not serve to illuminate because said drains are matters entirely remote from Contention 13.
The instant motion re:
Items D and E is denied. The interroga-tories referred to in these two Items relate to Contention 10 - the ability of the diesel generator system to reliably support the high pressure core spray. Applicant's explanations in its Response of March 31, 1980 are well taken.
It states that it had given the categories of improvement which it felt were significant alterations in the design of its diesel generators to rectify the problems identified in NUREG-0660, and beyond that it states that i
it does not have and cannot be expected to have intimate knowledge of the comparable elements of design in all other manufactured diesel generators.
Further, in its March 31st Response, Applicant tries to refine its answers in an effort to assist Mr. Doherty.
The instant motion re:
Item I is denied. The interrogatory referred to in this Item relates to Contention 14 - the Main Steam Line Range l
Monitor (MSLRM). Applicant had responded to questions a and b in its response to the interrogatory, and, in its March 31st Response, has answered the first question affirmatively.
(However, since Applicant answered that a
. "There is no difference in principle between the ACNGS and the Dresden III MSLRM system" Applicant and Staff are requested to present evidence in response to the following Board question:
If there is no difference in principle between the ACNGS and the Dresden III MSLRM systems, why could not the Dresden III incident be repeated at ACNGS?)
The instant motion re:
Item N is denied. The interrogatory referred to in this Item relates to the fission gas within fuel pins.
It is clear from a reading of the answer to the preceding Interrogatory 13-20-05 that Applicant had answered to the best of its knowledge in that it was unfamiliar with Westinghouse data.
Dr. Cheatum concurs but was unavailable to sign the instant order.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND l
LICENSING BOARD A%p- \\ o4 SheldonJ.WolG, Esquire Chairman ve A'. Linenberg Jr.,
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of April,1980.
e