ML20009D617
| ML20009D617 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1981 |
| From: | Linenberger G, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Doherty J DOHERTY, J.F. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8107240222 | |
| Download: ML20009D617 (4) | |
Text
..
g
/N c;=r,.
f =f C..:
g d'l 2 ' l98l p 1
' ra
' 3" UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O'f:. '" : '.:naq $*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ~ 7 i;;rha
- w
\\y '
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board A h 'l:
I
,[v ' '
Before Administrative Judges:
e Q/
t Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Dr. E. Leonard Cheatun
/Of kN g g Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. 'c
%r O#
'3'v m g 0: US y%
s c,
5
> W :~ l;l j'
)
In the Matter of
)
/h, I N
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY )
Docket No. 50 466-CP
)
( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
July 22, 1981 Station, Unit 1)
)
)
ORDER (Denying Doherty Motion For Leave To File Contention 57)
On Juna 22, 1981, Intervenor Doherty submitted motion for leave to file Contention 57. Therein, addressing the five factors in 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1), Mr. Doherty requested that the untimely filing of this contention be permitted. Citing an article (part two) published in Science News on May 16, 1981, the proposed contention asserts that, because the Allens Creek control systems are vulnerable to electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) which is produced in the ionosphere by a major detonation of conventional explosives and D'.O C
0 L
8107240222 810722 PDR ADOCK 05000466 G
- l especially by the detonation of a high-yield nuclear weapon, the nuclear power plant should be shielded or otherwise designed so as to permit safe operation in the event of such an occurrence.N The Applicant and the Staff opposed the instant motion in responses filed respectively on July 7 and July 13, 1981.
In order to determine whether to grant the instant motion, we must consider the five factors set forth in 52.714(a)(1). The first f actor must be weighed against Mr. Doherty because he has not shown good cause for having failed to file the contention on time.
Clearly, dissemination of data upon this phenomenon, whether resulting from nuclear or conventional explosions, is not of recent vintage, despite Mr. Doherty's allegation that information thereon was unavailable until the publication of the Science News article.
The cited Science News article itself reflected that the study of
-1/ We must conclude that the contention is directed solely to the launching of and ionospheric detonating of a nuclear weapon or of a conventional explosive device by American saboteurs.
If, for example, the contention had specifically related to enemy attacks, it would have constituted an impermissible challenge
'o the Commission's regulations.
10 C.F.R. 50.13 specifically states that an appitcant is not required to design or take other measures for the specific purpose of protecting the facility against the effects of enemy attacks and destructive acts, including sabotage, or the use of deploynent of weapons incident to U. S. defense activities. This regulation cannot be subject to attack by way of discovery, proof, arg ment, or other means in this adjudicatory proceeding, absent a showing of special ciremstances pursuant to the procedures set forth in 52.758. Mr. 00herty did not allege any circumstances that would have justified a waiver of or an exception to 50.13.
. EMP generated by nuclear weapons was cloaked in secrecy only until
-themid1960's.2/ Said article also referred to a 1975 Defense Department study captioned " Electromagnetic Pulse and Civil Preparedness". Finally, NUREG-0153, which had been published in December 1976, noted that the Oak Ridge National Laboratory had prepared two reports on this subject:
" Transient Response of Nuclear Power Plant Cables to High-Altitude Nuclear Electranagnetic Pulse (EMP)", ORNL-5156, May 1976, and "The Effects of Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) on Nuclear Power Plants", (draft)
ORNL-8029. The second factor must be weighed in Mr. Doherty's favor since there are no other available means to protect his interests. With regard to the third factor, Mr. Doherty does not discuss how his participation might reasonably be expected to assist in the development of a sound record upon this highly technical issue. Absent this discussion, we must weigh this factor against Mr. Doherty. Regarding the fourth factor, it must be weighed in his favor since his interest will not be represented by i
existing parties. Finally, the fifth factor must be weighed against Mr. Doherty.
Discovery on all issues has been completed 1
l 2/ Part one of the Science News article published on May 9,1981, indicated that, prior to the disuavery of nuclear-weapons-
~~
generated EMP, it had been known that the detonation of conventional high explosives sometimes produced EMP and that thus it had been expected that similar signals would accompany nuclear bursts.
l
4_
and over fifty days of hearings have been held. Were we to grant this motion, the issues would be unduly broadened and the proceedings would be delayed.
Mr. Doherty doe. not have a good excuse for having failed to file his contention in a timely manner. Favorable findings on some or even all of the other factors in s2.714(a)(1) need not outweigh the effect of inexcusable tardiness. Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., et. al.
(West Valley Reprocessing Plant),
CLI-75-4, 1 NRC 273, 275 (1975).
Accordingly, it is, this 22nd day of July,1981 ORDERED That the Doherty Motion For Leave To File Contention 57 is denied.
Judge Cheatum concurs bLt was unavailable to sign the instant order.
THE ATOMIC SAFIT.Y LICENSING OARD
)
w M4v Ntave A. Linenberge, Jr.
ADMINISTRATIVE JU
,h2 sed
- 5. Y Q 4
She' don t.
slfe ADMINISTRA
/E JUDGE
. _.,