ML20066E670
| ML20066E670 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1982 |
| From: | Brandenburg B, Morgan C CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC., MORGAN ASSOCIATES, POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8211150376 | |
| Download: ML20066E670 (15) | |
Text
".
D(NKETED UStiRC
'82 NOV 12 All :IO u-
,c,=.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
James P. Gleason, Chairman Frederick J.
Shon Dr. Oscar H.
Paris
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. )
Docket Nos.
(Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
)
50-247 SP
)
50-286 SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
)
(Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
)
November 9, 1982 l
LICENSEES' RESPONSE TO UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS' ORAL MOTION TO AMEND CONTENTIONS ATTORNEYS FILING THIS DOCUMENT:
Brent L. Brandenburg Charles Morgan, Jr.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY MORGAN A000CIATES, CHARTERED OF NEW YORK, INC.
1899 L Street, N.W.
4 Irving Place Washington, D.C.
20036 New York, New York 10003 (202) 466-7000 1
(212) 460-4600 8211150376 821109
,D8 3
l PDR ADOCK 05000247 G
+
TABLE OF CONTENTS I.
The Requested Amendments Are Not Timely.............
2 II.
The Beyea/ Von Hippel Article........................
4 III.
" Report of the Zion Indian Point Study - Volume I".............................
5 IV.
" Report of the Zion Indian Point Study - Volume II"............................
8 V.
NUREG/CR-2155 "A Review of the Applicability of Core Retention Concepts in Light Water Reactor Containments"...............................
9 i
W l
l r
,l.
+
At the prehearing conference of November 3, 1982, counsel for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) sought to add several documents as additional bases for contentions 2.l(a), 2.l(c), and 2.l(d) as set forth in the Board's i
October 1, 1982 Order.
Transcript of Proceedings at 4682-84 (Nov. 3, 1982).
These contentions deal with filtered vented containment systems, core-catchers and separate containment i
buildings, respectively.
UCS is once again belatedly attempting to satisfy the two-pronged test established by the Commission as a prerequisite to consideration of proposed further safety features under Commission Quest' ion 2.
The Board has requested that Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and the Power Authority of the State of I
New York (licensees) address whether the material cited by 1
UCS on November 3 aids UCS in satisfying the two-pronged 1.
At the November 3 prehearing conference, counsel i
for UCS referred to NUREG/CR-1410 (Report of the Zion / Indian Point Study:
Volume I (1980)), NUREG/CR-1411 (Report of the l
Zion / Indian Point Study Volume II (1980)), NUREG/CR-2155 (A Review ot The Applicability of Core Retention Concepts to l
Lightwater Reactor Containments (1981)), and an article by Dr. Beyea and Dr. Von Hippel in the August / September 1982 issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (Beyea/ Von Hippel article) as additional bases for the above-mentioned contentions.
Transcript of Proceedings at 4682-83 (Nov. 3, 1982).
Subsequent to the prehearing conference, UCS supplied specific pages in each NUREG on which they relied to bolster af firmative Board findings regarding the two-pronged test.
These pages are as follows:
NUREG/CR-1410 - pp. 1-1 to 1-81 and Appendices 1C, D and E NUREG/CR-1411 - pp. 140-42 NUREG/CR-2155 - pp. 19-20, 43, 63-64.
i
,e
-,....,-~,,n,-
...-nr.,,
, - ~,,. -. - - - - -... _,...
.n--.
l.
! +
test for the abovementioned contentions.
Transcript of Proceedings at 4686 (Nov. 3, 1982).
For the reasons set forth below, licensees do not believe that this Board should permit the amendment of the contentions sought by UCS.
Even if the amendment is permitted, none of the cited documents cure UCS' failure to satisfy the two-pronged test respecting these contentions as discussed by the licensees in their respective responses to the October 1 Order.
See Power Authority's Response to Board's October 1, 1982 Order Reformulating Contentions at 11-14, 18-20 (Oct. 19, 1982) (Power Authority Comments)) Con Edison's Memorandum Respecting the Licensing Board's October 1,1982, Order Reformulating Contentions at 20-25, 31-33 (Oct. 19, 1982) (Con Edison Comments).
I.
The Requested Amendments Are Not Timely In proposing that the NUREGs and the magazine article be accepted by the Board as additional bases for Contentions 2.l(a), (c) and (d), counsel for UCS stated that "two of them.
have come out since the time of the original bases being set forth."
Transcript of Proceedings at 4685 (Nov. 3, 1982), see also id. at 4683.
This is not accurate.
Even the most recently published of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) publications,
. +
NUREG/CR-2155, was available in September 1981.
NUREG/CR-1410 and 1411 were published in mid-1980.
Because UCS' original contentions were not filed until December 2, 1981 (and therefore post-dated the availability of each of the three NUREGs), UCS could have and should have referenced them at that time.
Its current attempt to amend contentions comes too late, and is accompanied by no explanation of that lateness.
Because no " good cause" has been offered or established for UCS' failure to cite the NUREG documents with its original statement of contentions, the Board should not permit the proposed amendment to contentions at this late date.1 1.
In In re Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H.
Zimmer Nuclear Station), 12 N.R.C.
231 (1980), the Board applied the late intervention standards of 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714(a)(1) (1982) to determine that the intervenor could not belatedly submit an additional contention.
Similarly, UCS has not satisfied these requirements regarding its new bases.
While there is no reason why the NUREG documents could not have been referenced in UCS/NYPIRG's contentions in 1981, at the very least the documents should have been referenced in UCS/NYPIRG's October 19, 1982 response to the Board's October 1 Order.
Intervenors' Response to ASLB Memorandum and Order of October 1, 1982 (Oct. 19. 1982).
Further, the licensees do not understand why counsel for UCS waited until the November 3 conference to mention, for the first time, the Beyea/ Von Hippel article which has been available for two months.
Had that article been referenced in its response to the October 1 Order, the licensees could have been prepared to address its effect on Contentions 2.l(a), (c), and (d) at the conference.
. +
II.
The Beyea/ Von Hippel Article Although this art
- le, entitled " Containment of a Reactor Meltdown," does discuss the use of filtered vented containment systems to prevent containment failure by overpressurization, it provides no support for an affirmative finding with respect to either prong of the Commission's two-pronged test.
First, the article contains no discussion of any particular site.
Therefore, even using this Board's liberal interpretation of the two-pronged test,1 it is not useful in determining whether, absent a filtered vent, a significant risk could exist at Indian Point or whether there could be a significant reduction in risk resulting from the employment of that safety measure.
Second, the majoc focus of the article is the potential use of this safety measure for small volume, ice condenser, and other pressure suppression containments which are more susceptible to overpressurization than larger structures.
The Indian Point containments are large volume, dry contain-ments.
Third, the article contains no analysis of risk or the potential for risk reduction at any site, and the authors do not suggest that they have performed any experi-ments or analyses which would support the effectiveness of 1.
See Power Authority Comments at 8-10 (discussion of two-pronged test); Con Edison Comments at 10-19 (discussion of two-pronged test).
. +
such a device.
Indeed, the article amounts to nothing more than a discussion of the history of consideration of fil-tered vented containments.
Therefore, it cannot be useful to the Board's determination of whether the two-pronged test is met for Indian Point.
Finally, as the authors themselves explicitly recog-nize, the potential use of filtered vented containments is "two-edged" because there are competing risks which have yet to be weighed by the NRC in " thorough safety analyses" for each containment type.
Beyea/ Von Hippel Article at 56.
This weighing must be followed by detailed, plant-specific analyses before there can be a determination whether such a system will reduce the overall risk for any given facility.
Id.
For these reasons, the article does not aid in making affitmative findings with regard to the two-pronged test.
III.
" Report of the Zion Indian Point Study:
Volume I" Because the pages of NUREG/CR-1410 referred to by UCS deal with filtered vented containment and the use of a separate containment, presumably this document is of fered as a basis for Contentions 2.1(a) and (d).
After reviewing NUREG/CR-1410, the licensees continue to object to the admission of contention 2.l(a) for the reasons stated in their respective memoranda in response to the Board's
+
'I October 1 order.
Power Authority Comments at 11-14; Con Edison Comments at 20-25.
Neither the pages of NUREG/CR-1410 referred to by UCS nor the document as a whole cure the defects of contention 2.l(a) cited previously by licensees.
NUREG/CR-1410 is but one of a series of documents which have been generated as part of the assessment of the Indian Point and Zion sites by the NRC Staff.
Volume I of NUREG-0850, one of the documents upon which the Board relied as a basis for contention 2.l(a), is also a product of this effort.
NUREG-0850, which is itself entitled a " Preliminary Assessment of.
. Strategies for Mitigating" core mel't accidents at the two plants, post-dates NUREG/CR-1410 by I
fifteen months and, in fact, refers to the earlier docu-ment.
See NUREG-0850 at 1-8 (Preliminary Assessment of Core Melt Accidents at the Zion and Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants and Strategies for Mitigating Their Ef fects (1981)).
As noted in licensees' October 19 memoranda, NUREG-0850 did not even address the level of risk presented by the operation of the Indian Point facilities, much less discuss or estimate likely the significance or level of the risk from overpressurization.
Power Authority Comments at 12: Con Edison Comments at 22-23.
Thus NUREG-0850 is of no assistance in satisfying the first prong of the two-pronged test as enunciated by the Board.
Like NUREG-0850, the earlier NUREG/CR-1410 is a pre-liminary analysis of very limited scope.
, _, _ _ _ _ _, _ _ ~_.,
. 1 notes that its results "should be considered preliminary" and that the "[olperational features such as venting strategies.
. should also be considered as preliminary, and the ideas expressed should not be taken as having been proven feasible."
NUREG/CR-1410 at 1.1.
Like NUREG-0850, NUREG/CR-1410 did not assess the level of risk posed by the Indian Point plants, nor did it calcu-late or estimate the possibilities of overpressurization at these plants actually causing the failure of containment.
It instead assumed that an accident of this sort had already occurred and then discussed the reduction in consequences which might result from different filtered vented options, utilizing the reactor Sifety Study consequence model.
Id.
at 1.68-69.
Thus, the NUREG did not even address the likelihood of significant risk or the likelihood of significant incremental reduction in that risk -- which constitute the two-pronged test.
The authors of NUREG/CR-1410 emphasized the limited nature of their analysis and the fact that they did not consider the overall safety impacts of filtered vented con-tainment systems.
Thus, referring to the possible reduction in consequences from filtered vents, the NUREG states that:
these calculations correspond to one accident only, and do not reflect the effect of vent filter systems on overall reactor risks nor the effect of faulty or inadvertent operation of the system.
Id. at 1.73.
The tentative nature of the analyses was
l.
. +
underscored by a section of the NUREG entitled " Unresolved Issues" which begins as follows:
To establish that a vent-filter system design is beneficial, it is necessary to show that the risk reduction potential for accidents which would have led to overpressure failure of containment is greater than the risk increment associated with accidents which would not have led to containment overpressurization and in which a vent-filter could result in increased releases of radioactive material.
Thus the most important remaining task is the evaluation of competing risks for each of the vent strategy options and vent-filter design options that have been proposed.
Id. at 1.78-79.
This NUREG does not attempt to establish the likelihood of a significant risk at Indian Point, or the likelihood of a significant reduction of risk from a filtered vent.
The former point is expressly not addressed, nor were the net incremental effects of the device considered.
The two-pronged test is not met because the NUREG did not attempt to assess either the overall level of risk associated with the operation of Indian Point, or the effect of the adoption of a filtered vent upon this level of risk.
IV.
" Report of the Zion / Indian Point Study Volume II" Licensees have been informed by UCS that it relies on pages 140-42 of this document to aid it in satisfying the two-pronged test for Contention 2.l(a), dealing with fil-
. r tered vented containment systems.
However, the single paragraph of the report which appears in these pages does nothing more than indicate what is believed by the NUREG's authors to be conservative and realistic set points in pounds per square inch for initial activation of a filtered vent.
The report neither recommends the installation of a filtered vented containment system at Indian Point as a risk reduction device, nor does it even assess the risk posed by the facility with or without such a device.
Therefore, it provides no basis for affirmative threshold findings with respect to the two-pronged test.
V.
NUREG/CR-2155 "A Review of the Applicability of Core Retention Concepts in Light Water Reactor Containments" Given the title of NUREG/CR-2155, licensees assume that this document has been offered by UCS as an additional basis for Contention 2.1(c).
However, the contention, as supple-mented by the additional proffered basis of the NUREG, con-tinues to fail to satisfy the Commission's two-pronged test for further safety measures.
NUREG/CR-2155 does not attempt to estimate the current level of risk at Indian Point, the contribution of the potential for basemat melt-through to this level of risk or the reduction in risk from utilizing a core-catcher.
The document is an assessment of the potential " risk-reduction benefit of a retainer at five specific reactor sites --
l
. +
Surry, Peach, Bottom, Sequoyah, Oconee and Grand Gulf."
Id.
at 6.
This assessment is based "upon documented risk analyses for (those] plants."
Id. (emphasis added).
Analyses specifically limited to other plants obviously cannot be utilized to satisfy the two-pronged test, given the Commisrion's oft-repeated desire that this hearing be focused upon the risk of the Indian Point plants.
- See, jt.jl., Memorandum and Order at 13 (July 27, 1982).
The NUREG also refers to " uncertainties" related to the effectiveness of a core-retainer, the need to perform
" experimental work" to resolve these uncertainties, twelve
" concerns" that must be addressed "before an effective core retainer can be identified," " areas" that would have to be addressed once such a retainer has been identified (includ-ing the impact of a retainer upon the operation of other systems) and the " phenomena associated with accident sequences which need to be better understood."
Given these many caveats and the lack of any analysis for the Indian Point facilities, NUREG/CR-2155 cannot be used as a basis to satisfy the two-pronged test, and Contention 2.l(c) should not be admitted.
A minimal acceptable effort to satisfy the two-pronged test for a core-catcher would require some assessment of the significance of risk due to basemat melt-through at Indian Point, and whether the core-catcher device would be a likely source of a significant reduction in risk from the basemat e
. +
melt-through scenario.
Such an evaluation is absent from NUREG/CR-2155, and UCS, the sponsoring intervenor, has accordingly supplied no grounds for concluding that this device meets the two-pronged test.
Respectfully submitted, II?~0A1lR N hwA./Ac-Brent L.
Brandenburg UF Charles Morgan, Jt.
Paul F.
Colarulli CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY Joseph J.
Levin, Jr.
OF NEW YORK, INC.
Licensee of Indian Point MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED Unit 2 1899 L Street, N.W.
4 Irving Place Washington, D.C.
20036 New York, New York 10003 (202) 466-7000 (212) 460-4600 Stephen L. Baum General Counsel Charles M. Pratt Assistant General Counsel POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Licensee of Indian Point Unit 3 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 (212) 397-6200 Bernard D. Fischman Michael Curley Richard F.
Czaja David H.
Pikus SHEA & GOULD 330 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 370-8000 Dated:
November 9, 1982
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
James P.
Gleason, Chairman Frederick J.
Shon Dr. Oscar H.
Paris
)
In the Matter of:
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF
)
NEW YORK, INC.
)
Docket Nos. 50-247 SP (Itidian Point, Unit No. 2)
)
50-286 SP
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF
)
)
(Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
)
)
CERTIEICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 9th' day of November, 1982, I caused a copy of the Licensees' Response to Union of Concerned i
Scientists' Oral Motion to Amend Contentions to be hand delivered to those parties marked with an asterisk, and served by first class mail, postage prepaid on all others.
l l
l l
l
+
.
- James P.
Gleason, Chairman Charles M.
Pratt, Esq.
Administrative Judge' Stephen L.
Baum, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Power Authority of the 513 Gilmoure Drive State of New York Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019
- Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Administrative Judge Janice Moore, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Counsel for NRC Staff U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Commission Legal Director Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. Oscar H.
Paris Administrative Judge Brent L.
Brandenburg, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant General Counsel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Consolidated Edison Company Commission of New York, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
20555 4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 Docketing and Service Branch Office of the Secretary Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission William S.
Jordan, III, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Harmon and Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 Joan Holt, Project Director Washington, D.C.
20006 Indian Point Project New York Public Interest Research Charles A.
Scheiner, Co-Chairperson Group Westchester People's Action 9 Murray Street Coalition, Inc..
Box 488 White Plains, New York 10602 John Gtlroy Westchester Coordinator Alan La tma n, Esq.
Indian Point Project 44 Sunset Drive j
New York Public Interest Research Croton-On-Hudson, New York 10520 l
Group l
240 Central Avenue Ezra I.
Bialik, Esq.
l White Plains, New York 10606 Steve Leipzig, Esq.
j Environmental Protection Bureau Jeffrey M.
Blum, Esq.
New York State Attorney New York University Law School General's Office 423 Vanderbilt Hall Two World Trade Center 40 Washington Square South New York, New York 10047 New York, New York 10012 Alfred B.
Del Bello Charles J.
Maikish, Esq.
Westchester County Executive Litigation Division Westchester County The Port Authority of New York 148 Martine Avenue and New Jersey White Plains, New York 10601 One World Trade Center New York, New York 10048 Andrew S.
Roffe, Esq.
New York State Assembly Albany, New York 12248
+
~
. Marc L.
Parris, Esq.
Stanley B. Klimberg, Esq.
Eric Thorsen, Esq.
General Counsel County Attorney New York State Energy Office County of Rockland 2 Rockefeller State Plaza 11 New Hempstead Road Albany, New York 12223 New City, New York 10956 Atomic Safety and Licensing Pat Posner, Spokesperson Board Panel Parents Concerned About Indian U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Point Washington, D.C.
20555 P.O.
Box 125 Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Renee Schwartz, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Paul Chessin, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Laurens R.
Schwartz, Esq.
Margaret Oppel, Esq.
Honorable Richard L.
Brodsky Botein, Hays, Sklar and Hertzberg Member of the County Legislature 200 Park Avenue Westchester County New York, New York 10166 County Office Building White Plains, New York 10601 Honorable Ruth W. Messinger Member of the Council of the Zipporah S.
Fleisher City of New York West Branch Conservation District #4 Association City Hall 443 Buena Vista Road New York, New York 10007 New City, New York 10956 Greater New York Council Mayor George V.
Begany on Energy Village of Buchanan c/o Dean R.
Corren, Director 236 Tate Avenue New York University Buchanan, New York 10511 26 Stuyvesant Street New York, New York 10003 Judith Kessler, Coordinator Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy Geoffrey Cobb Ryan 300 New Hemstead Road Conservation Committee Chairman New City, New York 10956 Director, New York City Audubon Society David H.
Pikus, Esq.
71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 Richard F.
Czaja, Esq.
New York, New York 10010 330 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10017 Lorna Salzman Mid-Atlantic Representative Friends of the Earth, Inc.
208 West 13th Street New York, New York 10011 e
.. Amanda Potterfield, Esq.
P.O.
Box 384 Village Station New York, New York 10014
- Ruthanne G. Miller, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing ton,
D.C.
20555 Mr. Donald Davidof f Director, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group Empire State Plaza Tower Building, Rm. 1750 Albany, New York 12237 Craig Kaplan, Esq.
National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee 175 Fifth Avenue, Suite 712 New York, New York 10010 Michael D.
Diederich, Jr., Esq.
Fitgerald, Lynch & Diederich 24 Central Drive Stony Point, New York 10980 m,
Paul F.
Colarulli
+
_ _