ML20010B154
| ML20010B154 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1981 |
| From: | Linenberger G, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Doherty AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8108140150 | |
| Download: ML20010B154 (3) | |
Text
G k
4 g
j Docxrn' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIRIORY CDbt4ISSION k
-\\
AUG 1ggggy
)
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD h 0r
}
Before Ad:ninistrative Judges Brxth k
Sheldon J. vblfe, Chairman F
Dr. E. Ieonard Cheatun
' 0) cp Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
MRVED AUG1% 199y
)
In the Matter of
)
)
HOUS' ION LIGHTIN3 AND KWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466-CP
)
m (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
August 12, 1981 x f-g Station, Unit 1)
)
cif y:
s
}' 6bJ J '.b
'1 3 1981
- I CRDER
-l (Granting Doherty Renewed Motion For Ud '* $ "ji S "
Reconsideration and Admitting His Amended Contention 2L).
I' c
(v/
As amended by his subnission of August 20, 1979, Mr.
/ Q[-
Doherty's Contention 21 reads as follows:
"htiis Intervenor contends that the resolution of the -
issue of the anount of reactivity inserted by the collapse of voids during overpressure transients (See: p. 4-7, Sup. # 2, SER) being generically investigated by the NRC will result in derating of the proposed plant output to the extent his environmental interest would have suffered less harm Sy having applicant construct a plant using either a different fuel (such as coal) or a pressurized nuclear plant.
Applicant's Environmental Statement and Environnental Recoct show projections which irrlicate they expect to want to produce nore power after ACN3S (that is, will want greater capacity). Hence plant derating due to the resolution of
~
l this issue will intensify the requirement for new facilities.
1 Intervenor contiends the amount of environmental harm caused by the proposed facility when derated plus other facilities created to make up'the derated amount would be l
greater than the harm caused by requiring this issue be l
resolved before the construction license is issued and the design finalized. Further, derating for various reasons for BWR atomic plants has occurred at Browns Ferry #1 and #2, Quad Cities #1 and #2 and Pilgrim Station."
1 l
8108140150 810812 k
$g#
l PDR ADOCK 05000466 i
O PDR H(
-2 e'
Our Order of March 10, 1980 rejected the contention. On February 22, 1981, Intervenor filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Amended Contention 21, which was denied without prejudice by our Order of. April 22, 1981. Afterconsultingwiththedtaff(asdirectedbyour Order of April 22, 1981), on June 22, 1,981 Mr. Daherty renewed his it> tion for Reconsideration. Applicant and Staff filed opposing responses on July 7,1981 and Juq 13, 1981, respectively.
Stated sinply, Intervenor would ncra have us adnit Arrended Contention 21 " narrowed to consideraticn of pwer core density and the adequacy of the ODYN code to demonstrate the reactor scram curve."
(Motion of June 22, 1981, at page 2). We cb not perceive Mr. Ibherty's renewed motion as departing from the thrust of Amended Contention 21.
Rather we conclude that, following his discussion with Staff, Mr.-
Doherty has refocused the basis of his contention frcrn the concerns raised by the Reed Report to the nore specific cancern as to the adequacy of the ODYN code because a high core poaer density will be encountered in the ACIES. Thus, we do rot cancur with Applicant and f
Staff that we have before us in untimely filed new contention. Tne agended contention, alleging that derating will be necessary and that l
environmental harm will result therefrom, will be heard. Further, Staff's assertion that the adequacy of ODYN "will be verified in the Allens Creek application during the OL review" (Staff response of July l
13,1981, p. 6, n. 4) pronets the Board to request that the following l
subjects be addressed:
the basis for confidence that the OL phase l
t verification will rot show a need for ACNGS derating, the basis for believing that deferring that answer until the OL review will not unnecessarily burden the Applicant, and why, despite the experience to date witn the ODYN code, further verification is needed at all.
Accordingly, it is this 12th day of August, 1981 ORDERED
- 1. That Mr. Ibherty's renewed Motion For Reconsideration is granted and his Amended Contention 21 is admitted.
ThatanydiscoveryuponthisContentionmustbeo$mpleted 2.
within thirty-five (35) days frcm the date of this Order.
Judge Cheatum concurs but was unavailable to sign the instant order.
l THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSItG M i
l A
9(A l
Ntavs A. 'LinenWer, Jr.
~~
l AIX4INISTPATIVE JJDGE h tt\\
Sheldon J.
'~
ADMINISTRATIVE c.
i l
l
--