ML19323D762

Response in Opposition to Jf Doherty Contentions 48 & 49. Intervenor Failed to Justify Untimeliness & to State Good Basis for Conteniton 48.Contention 49 Is Inappropriate for Consideration Due to Class 9 Policy.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19323D762
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/22/1980
From:	Biddle C, Newman J BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8005220299
Download: ML19323D762 (8)

Text

-

s r- 4 o

0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9, g g

- 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD APR 24 m . ;

U

$$k$$1#W s In the Matter of S 4 Brancf HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S

(Allens Creek Nuclear S Generating Station, Unit S No. 1)

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO JOHN F. DOHERTY'S CONTENTIONS 48 AND 49 __

Applicant files this response to the motion of John F. Doherty (Intervenor) for admission into this proceeding of untimely contentions numbered 48 and 49. For the reasons discussed below, the motior anould be denied.

Intervenor has filed another motion attempting to insert his tenth and eleventh untimely filed contentions into this proceeding. Again, Intervenor acknowledges that the contentions were filed out of time; and again he seeks to have them considered by referring briefly to the factors set forth in 10 C.F.R., S 2.714 and (i)-(v). As has been his habit, Mr. Doherty relies almost exclusively on the recent appearance of documents discussing " safety" items as both a ,

basis for his contention and justification for late filing.

In the case of Contention No. 48, Mr. Doherty asserts that letter correspondence between General Electric g 90seco2W

Company and the NRC has only recently identified the control rod drive (CRD) hydraulic control system as "an additional safeguard against events where there is water loss from the reactor vessel yet pressure remains high." Mr. Doherty admits that this portion of the system is not designed or constructed to provide a safety-related function, but he alleges that the dependence on this sub-system during various undescribed incidents at operating boiling water reactors as early as 1970 is evidence of the " safety value" of retaining the CRD return line.~1/ What Mr. Doherty fails to assert, however, is any recognizable connection between the events he  !

alleges demonstrated the sjanificance of the CRD return line and the ACNGS integrated design guaranteeing multiple sources of high-pressure water for injection into the reactor vessel.

The missing key element to Intervenor's allegations is a demonstrable dependence upon the CRD return line of the sort he claims was manifest in three prior incidents. Without reaching the issue of whether these alleged incidents actually displayed a critical reliance on the CRD return line, it is i sufficient in this instance to note that the ACNGS design prevents any safety dependence on the sub-system in issue.

1/ Removal'of the CRD hydraulic return line, a non-essential component, is advantageous because it eliminates a troublesome item susceptible to corrosion and fatigue cracking.

I

It should be first recognized that by design there are three safety class high-pressure water sources for 2/

supplying the reactor vessel. Moreover, the CRD hydraulic system can provide water to the vessel via alternative paths, including the CRD return line. Without the CRD return line, it is a si.nple matter to configure the CRD hydraulic system to deliver water to the vessel through the control rod drives (see, e.g., PSAR Figures 4.2-20 & -21).

Hence, deletion of the CRD return line does not result in the inability of the CRD system to deliver water to the vessel. Accorcingly, even if the existence of the CRD hydraulic system as a high-pressure water flow-path to the vessel has safety significance for the ACNGS design--a con-dition not alleged in Mr. Doherty's pleading--the contemplated modification of the control rod drive return line would have no effect on the " safety" function of that system.

As Mr. Doherty offhandedly admits, the modification of the CRD return line was included in the ACNGS PSAR well in advance of the date for filing timely contentions. Mr.

Doherty attempts to nimbly avoid this fact by asserting that the safety significance of the modification only recently came to light. However, there is no " safety significance" to the modification-3/ (as one would expect in any change to a 2/ High Pressure Core Spray--PSAR, S 6.3.2; Feedwater--PSAR, S 10.4.7; Reactor Core Isolation Cooling, S 5.5.6.

3/ Intervenor's reference to slower CRD movement during power maneuvering is not a safety concern: technical specification scram times are in no way affected.

non-safety system); and, therefore, Mr. Doherty has neither a justification for late filing nor a supportable basis for his contention. Accordingly, the motion to admit Contention No.

48 as a late-filed contention should be denied.

In Contention No. 49 Mr. Doherty attempts yet again to raise the consideration of Class 9 accidents in this licensing proceeding. More particularly, he urges the consideration of the reactor site's ability to contain or delay " core meltdown contents." However, the Commission and this Board have made clear that consideration of Class 9 accidents in licensing proceedings are inappropriate in those cases where the Staff identifies unique environmental consequences in individual cases. In its March 10, 1980, Order, this Board noted that the Commission has not expressed any view on the question of environmental consideration of Clacs 9 accidents at land-based plants and inlanded to complete a rulemaking begun in 1971 to re-examine Commission policy in this area.~4/ The Board further noted that "since the existing policy not to consider Class 9 accidents at landbased reactors was not set aside by the Commission," contentions urging consideration of Class 9 consequences are inadmissible. The Commission reaffirmed its policy on the consideration of Class 9 accidents in Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2) CLI-80-8, 11 NRC (March 21, 1980). There the Commission vacated the Appeal 4/ See Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants),

CLI-79-9, 10 NRC (September 14, 1979.

Board's instruction to the Staff to advise the Comn.ission whether Class 9 accidents should be considered in that case, and ruled explicitly that "the existing policy on Class 9 accidents was not displaced in Offshore Power and would not be displaced pending generic consideration of Class 9 accident situations in policy development and rulemaking." Thus, as recognized by the Appeal Board, "the Commission has reserved for itself the right to decide whether the consequences of Class 9 accidents at land-based reactors are to be considered in any given case. Furthermore, it is entirely the Staff's responsibility to apprise the Commission -whether such action should be addres=ed in individual cases."-5/Clearly, in light 6/

of this " unambiguous" statement of Commission policy,~

Intervenor's Contention No. 49 is inappropriate for consideration in this licensing proceeding and should be rejected.

Respectfully submitted, 0 dI (

OF COUNSEL: J. Gregory Copeland '

C. Thomas Biddle, Jr.

BAKER & BOTTS Charles G. Thrash, Jr.

3000 One Shell Plaza 3000 Onc Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77002 5/ Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Genereting Station , Unit 1) , ALAB-588 (April 1, 1980) Slip Op. at 9 (unless added).

6/ See also Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2, ALAB-587 (March 23, 1980).

1 J

< LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, Jack R. Newman AXELRAD & TOLL Robert H. Culp 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY l

l I

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S S

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S

(Allens Creek Nuclear S Generating Station, Unit S No. 1)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Applicant's Response to John F. Doherty's Contentions 48 and 49 in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United Stqtes mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery this j2f_d day of April, 1980.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Richard Lowerre, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel for the State of Texas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 12548 Washingten, D. C. 20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A Hon. Charles J. Dusek Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Mayor, City of Wallis P. O. Box 312 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Wallis, Texas 77485 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Leroy H. Grebe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County Judge, Austin County Washington, D. C. 20555 P.O. Box 99 Bellville, Texas 77418 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary of the Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 R. Gordon Gooch, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Baker & Botts Board Panel 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

-Washington, D. C. 20006 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 i

Steve Schinki, Esq. Carro Hinderstein Staff Counsel 8739 Link Terrace U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston, Texas 77025 Washington, D. C. 20555

- Leotis Johnston Mr. Bryan L. Baker 1407 Scenic Ridge 1118 Montrose Houston, Texas 77043 Houston, Texas 77019 Ms. Rosemary N. Lemmer Mr. J. Morgan Bishop 11423 Oak Spring 11418 Oak Spring Houston, Texas 77043 Houston, Texas 77043 D. Marrack Ms. Carolina Conn 420 Mulberry Lane 1414 Scenic Ridge Bellaire, Texas 77401 Houston, Texas 77043 Ms. Brenda McCorkle Ms. Elinore P. Cumings 6140 Darnell Route 1, Box 138V Houston, Texas 77074 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Mr. W. Matthew Perrenod Stephen A. Doggett, Esq. 4070 Merrick P. O. Box 592 Houston, Texas 77025 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Mr. Wayne E. Rentfro Mr. John F. Doherty P. O. Box 1335 4327 Alconbury Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Houston, Texas 77021 Mr. James M. Scott Robert S. Framson 13935 Ivy Mount Madeline Bass Framson Sugar Land, Texas 77478 4822 Waynesboro Houston, Texas 77035 Robin Griffith 1034 Sally Ann Rosenberg, Texas 77471 5

C. Thomas Biddle, Jr. y/ '

I

.