ML20081H067
| ML20081H067 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1991 |
| From: | Gutterman A NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20081G996 | List: |
| References | |
| LBP-91-19, OLA-2, NUDOCS 9106140099 | |
| Download: ML20081H067 (21) | |
Text
.
FMYEll D
. v3FC ,
'91 t" ' .1R P 6 ' d UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of ) Nos. 50-528-OLA-2, 50-529-OLA-2
) and 50-530-OLA-2 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE )
COMPANY, et al. )
) (Allowable Setpoint Tolernnee)
(Palo Verde Nuclear )
Generating Station, ) ASLBP No. 91-633-05-OLA-2 Units 1, 2 and 3) )
)
Brief of Licensges on_ Appeal of LBP-91-19 I. Introduction Pursuant to *0 CFR S 2.714a, Arizona Public Service Company, et al. ("Licensecs" or "APS") appeal from the May 9, 1991 Memorandum and Order (" Memorandum") of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board"). 1/ The Memorandum denied four of the five contentions asserted by Petitioners Allan L. and Linda E. Mitchell 2/, admitted Contention 1 as it construed that contention and therefore granted their petition for leave to in s vene and request for hearing in this license amendment proceeding.
1/ Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), LBP-91-19, slip op. (May 9, 1991).
2/ San Supplemental Petition of Mitchell Petitioners for Leave to Intervene, Mar. 9, 1991 (" Petition").
9106140099 910528 PDR 0 ADOCK 05000520 PDR So 3
In doing so, the Board recognized that in 1989 the Commission amended section 2.714 to raise the throahold for admission of contentions (54 Fed. Reg. 33,168 (Aug. 11, 1989))
and that this proceeding raised important questions relating to the proper implementation of the amendment. It said:
We address the matter of construing the language of contentions at some length because the language of the accepted Mitchell contention, as de explain in the discussion of it below, would not survive a strict construction. At the outset, we note that our task here is first, to construe appropriately the intent of the contention and its bases, then, once construed, to apply the high-threshold substantive requirements for pleading contentions.
Memorandum at 7-8.
The Board described its task correctly. However, in attempting to accomplish that task the Board, in significant part, misconceived the burden which amended section 2.714 imposes upon petitioners and, in so doing, we respectfully submit, l
departed from the expressed purpose of the 1989 amendments to 10 CFR S 2.714. This proceeding, therefore, presents a question of importance relating to the implementation of the Commission's regulations in regard to the orderly conduct of proceedings before licensing boards.
The Board, holding that it must view the Petition "la the i
light most favorable to accepting it," (1d1 at 9-10) found an admissible contention in an issue which is not mentioned in the Petition and as to which the Petition supplies n, supporting i
l l
t I
l t
l l
l I
. facts or reasons. Id at 19. Such support is explicitly required by section 2.'i14(b)(2)(111). In addition, the Memorandum admits as part of the contention what amounts to a challenge to the adequacy of a regulation (Id at 22), contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR S 2.758 which prohibits consideration of such challenges.
In developing the 1989 amendments to section 2.714 the l
Commission sought "to ensure that the resources of all parties are focused on real rather than imaginary issues." 51 Fed. Reg.
24,365, 24,366 (July 3, 1986). The Memorandum admitting Contention 1 and granting Petitioners' 19 quest for hearing will result in the unnecessary expenditure ot NRC and Licensses' limited resources to engage in discovery, prepare motions and te timony and potentially participate in a hearing on natters that do not merit further consideration. For these, and other reasons described in detail below, the Commission should reverse the Board's finding that Contention 1 is admissible and deny th request for hearing.
II. 'Eackground Informatian ,
On November 13, 1990, APS applied for amendments to the operating licenses for each of the three Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station ("PVNGS") units thnt would:
- 1. Reduce the minimum required auxiliary feedwater ("AFW")
flow from 750 gpm to 650 gpm;
- 2. Incroaso the allowablo sotpoint toleranco for tho i Pressurizer Safety Valvss ("PSV") from 2500 psia i 1%
to + 3%/- it;
- 3. Increaso the allowable sotpoint toloranco for the Main Steam Safety Valvos 3/ ("HSSV") from 1250 psig, 1290 psig, and 1315 psig i 1% to the same sottings 1 3t; and
- 4. Reduce the responso timo for the High Prosauritor Prescuro Reactor Trip ("HPPT") from 1.15 seconds to 0.5 seconds. A/
Letter to NRC from W.F. Conway (APS) dated Nov. 13, 1990, Attachment 1 (" Application") at 3-5.
As noted in the Application, comparablo amendments dosigned to meet industry-wido problems encountered in mooting restrictivo PSV and MSSV sotpoint tolerances have bean approved 5/ by tho 3/ The NdSVs and PSVs are mechanically operated and calibrated so that they will fully open or completely close at a
" nominal" pressure. Th3 actual pressure at which a particular valve will actuato in any given instance will vary from the nominal actuation pressuro (or "sotpoint").
The amount by which the pressure of actuation of those valvos may vary is known as the sotpoint tolerance and is the primary subject of this amendment. PVNGS Updated Findl Safety Analysis Report ("UTSAR") S 5.1.4, 5 O.
A/ The HPPT responso time is the period of time after high pressurizer prossure is sensed by plant equipment until a control rod insartion (trip) signal is generated to shut down the reactor (i.e., the reactor la trippod). Technical Specification 1.27.
5/ South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), 56 Fed. Rog. 4859, 4876 (Feb. 6, 1991)
(PSV); Consumers Powar Co. (Palisados Plant), 53 Fod. Rog.
48,323, 48,342 (Nov. 30, 1988) (HSSV); Duquesne Light Co.
(continued...)
4-
-, -- ,,..-,-,,-,.~m. ..-~-w-.. -..<n-- ,_-m.., .ww w e,ny.n, ,,,.-p,. -,---,,,,-.,wr.-.v,--,c-- ,w,, ,.- , ,
4 i
NRC or roguestod A/ for many other fac111tios. Application at 2.
The Application states that APS ovaluated the offect of the proposed changos on the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
("OFSAh") Chaptor 15 safety analysos, the rolovant dusign buslu accidents in UPSAR Chapter 6, and the natural circulation cooling i i
for PVNGS and concluded that the proposed licenso amendment fully prosorvos the resuAta of the safoty analyson. Id. at 2-3; aca alas Transmittal Lottor at 1. The Application describos dota11od safety evaluations for those ovent scenarios that could be adversely impacted by the proposed amendment, t
in responso to the NRC's December 27, 1990 Notico of <
Consideration of Amondment and Opportunity for Hearing, Petitioners filed a timely request for hearing on January 28, ;
5/(... continued)
(Beavor Valley Power Station, Unit 9), 53 Fod. Rog. 40,981, 41,003 (Oct. 19, 1988) (PSV and ."5SV ; Portland General Elec. Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), 5.1 Fod. Rog. 35,784, 35,817 (Sept. 23, 1987) (PSV and MSF/) . Sao also Gulf States Utilition Co. (River Bond Station, Unit 1), 53 Fod. !
Reg. 20,038, 70,051 (June 1, 1988) (BWR Safety Rolief Valvo
("SRV")); Commonwealth Edison Co. (La Sallo County Station, Units 1 and 2), 50 Fed. Rog. 47,856, 47,878 (Nov. 20, 1985)
(SRV).
6/ Consumers Power Co. (Palisades Plant), 56 Fed. Reg. 11,168, 11,777 (Mar. 20, 1991) (PSV); South Carelina Elec. & Gaa Co., Souti: Carolina Pub. Serv. Auth. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear .ccation, Unit No. 1), 56 Fed. Reg. 9373, 9386 (Mar.
6, 1991) (MSSV); Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Unit Hos. I and 2), 54 Fod. Rog. 40,922, 40,931 (Get. 4, 1989) (PSV and MSSV).
I
1991. 2/ The Board rejected the arguments of the Licensoon and the NRC Staff concerning the inadoquacy of the Petition and directed the Petitionors to supplomont their petition with proposed contentior.s. Arizona Public_Scryice Co, (Palo Vordo Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), LDP-91-4, slip op. (Pob. 19, 1991). Petitioners' supplomontal Petition, which identified five proposed contentions, was discussed in various pleadings B/ and at a prohoaring conference hold in Phoenix on April 10, 1991. On May 10, 1991, tho Board issued the Memorandum at issuo in this appeal admitting Contention 1 and rejecting Contentions 2-5.
Having found one contention admissible, the Board granted the request for hearing. Memorandum at 32-33.
Contention 1 statos:
Contention _lis__1: The request to amond the sotpoint tolerances for the Main Steam Safety Valves (MSSVs) and the Pressurizer Safoty Valves (PSVs) would cause a safety limit violation in the event of a loss of condensor vacuum (LOCV). Sotpoint drift in the increasing direction of the pressurizer safeties setpoint with a setting high in tho band would excood the safety limits.
Petition at 2-3.
2/ A second group of Petitioners also requestod a hearing, but that request was subsequently denied, in part because the Petitioners did not show that thoro was a genuino issuo of material fact or law requiring a hearing. Arizona P2blic Servico Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3),
LBP-91-13, slip op. (April 24, 1991).
H/ Sen Licensees' Response to Supplemental Petition of Mitchell
.otitioners, Mar. 21, 1991; NRC Staff Response to Supplemental Petitions to Intervano Piled by Myron L. Scott, Barbara S. Bush and the Coalition for Responsiblo Energy Education and Allan L. and Linda E. Mitchell, Mar. 26, 1991.
6-
)
l I 7 The Petition explained the bases for contention 1 at some longth. The explanations, howover, are ambiguous and somewhat inconsistent. At the prohoaring conference, Petitionors sought l
1 to clarify the bases for Contentjon 1 in terms of tho following I two concerns: j
- 1. When valvos are tested and found to be close to f l the limits of the authorized toleranco (1 3%), tho
, valvos will be treated as having mot the l 4
i
- acceptance critorion and will be returnod to !
i i
' I service without rosetting them to the nominal i
sotpoint. Petitioners expressed concern that -
during cubsequent operation, valvos will drife.
further from their nominal sotpoints -- a drift potentially sufficient to exceed safoty limits in tho ovent of a loss of condonsor vacuum ("LOCV"). ?
Tr. 21-22. l i
- 2. In-Service Test ("IST") requirements provide for testing a sample of valves at each refueling l
outage. In the ovent of test failures, the samplo [
t is enlarged. Petitioners expressed concern that ;
with tho loss rostrictivo acceptanco critoris authorized by the amendmont, fewer valvos will be treated as "failev.' and, hence, sample sizos are less likely to be onlarged. Petitionors argued
.)
-.--r_ . . _ _ - . , ~ . - ~ - - - . . . - - - - - - - - . , - - . -_ - ~ - , - - - _ _ _ - - ,
1 that valves which are untestod for one or more outages, may drift unacceptably without being dotected. Tr. 23-24.
The Board evidonped constornation rogarding the nature of Petitionorr' concerns:
The Board had difficulty understanding the first basis. For one thing, statomont (A) can be road to accept the analysis and conclusions of LOCV analysis at pages 21-24 of the Application. In fact, nowhere do the Petitioners expressly challongo any of the assumptions supporting the now analysis, even ,
though it appears that all of the assumptions are required if the calculated pressures are not to excoed the safety limits. Application at 22. Without a challongo to the !
assumptions and tho analysis based upon them, it is difficult to identify in the first basis a dispute betwoon the Mitchells and Licensoos.
Memorandum at 18.
At the prohoaring conference the Board explained that it could not understand the first basis unless the Petitioners were challenging assumptions in Licenseos' analysis of the LOCV ovent, including the HPPT responso time. Tr. 45-48, 58-60. The following colloquy then ensued with counsel for Petitioners:
JUDGE KLINE: Is it your view that you ;
are attacking the throo assumptions in the safety anal'; sis report?
MR COLAPINTO: I would have to attack the -- I believo wo would have to attack the (HPPT) respocso time in order to make the correlation betwoo3 the sotpoint value of the valves.
JUDGE "' I E : Yeu haven't challonged it so far but you would like to, I guess.
i
,o -
MR. COLAPINTO: Yos , Your lionor.
Tr. 60.
Tho Board majority accepted tho statomont of counsel that impJicit in Contention 1 is a challengo to tho " assumption" concerning IIPPT responso time. The Board majority found that:
The llPPT responso assumption sot out in the notico of opportunity for hearing is inferentially a logical targot of the first basis. We attributo failure to plead that challengo to drafting oversight.
Memorandum at 19. The Board concluded:
We, however, construe the contention as having two logs:
(1) It challenges the analysis in the safety evaluation by challenging the liigh Prossurizer Prosauro Trip responso-timo assumption, but (2) Even accepting the LOCV analysis (and its !! PPT response-timo assumption) as correct, the magnitude of possible sotpoint drift could cause the 9.1 psia safety margin calculated in the analysis to bo exceeded.
14 at 22-23.
III. Argument A. The Petition Does Not Identify Adequate Bases to Quca1 loa _th e_11EPl_Ro s p on an_.Ti me The Commission adopted amendments to 10 CFR S 2.714 in 1989 to "raiso the threshold for tho admission of contentions . . . .
S4 red. Rog at 33,168 (Aug. 11, 1989).
In adopting the 1989 revisions to 10 CFR S 2.714, the Commiosion stated that it was overturning prior holdings of tho
~ _ _ _
Atomic Safoty and Licensing Appeal Doard that section 2.714 doos not require petitioners to describo facts that would be offorod in support of a proposed contention:
The now rulo will requiro that a petitionor includo in its submission somo allegod fact or facts in support of its position sufficient to indicate that a gonuino issuo of material fact or law exists.
[T)he contention will be dismissed if the intervonor sets forth no facts or export opinion on which it intends to rely to provo its contention, or if the contention fails to establish that a genuino disputo exists botwoon the intervonor and tho applicant (or, possibly, the NRC staff on a NEPA issue).
Id at 33,170-71. The Petition, ovon as amplified by the statements of Petitioners at the prohoaring conference, and by the statement. . thr, Board, fails to moot this standard.
The Petition does not mention, or even allude to any concern regarding +.he HPPT response time. Indood, the statement of basis for Contention 1 apparently accepts and relios upon Licensees' analysis of the LOCV, including the HPPT response time.
Although, at the prohoaring conference, counsel for Petitioners stated that contention 1 could only make senso if it contemplated a challenge to the HPPT cc:ponse timo (Een Tr. 60), at no timo has any basis for such a challengo boon cited by either Petitioners or the Board.
The Board has framed this issuo in terms of an allegod lack of " sufficient information" in the Application to support the assumed HPPT response timo. Memorandum at 32. This is not 10 - !
l sufficient to support a contention under 10 CFR S 2.714 as amonded; a gonoralized contention that an application is
" insufficient" must be supported by como identification of what additional information is necessary and an explanation of why it is necessary. 10 CPR S 2.714(2)(b)(lii); See r_lorido_f.nwn d Light.fa (Turkey Point Nuclear Gonorating Plant, Units 3 and 4),
LBP-90-16, 31 NRC 509, 515-16, (1990). Noither Potitioners nor the Board have provided any such identification or explanation.
The lovel of information in the Application is clearly adoquato. The Application states that a review of "the curve 111ance history for HPPT responso timo found it to be consistently betwoon 200 ms. (0.2 soc) and 275 ms. (0.275 soc)."
Application at 3, 22. Neither the Petitioners nor the Board have identified any reason to question the accuracy of that statement.
Moreover, the HPPT response time is not merely an assumption for analytical purposos; it is a Limiting Condition for Operation in the Technical Specifications (both the current version and the proposed amendment). Technical Specification 3.3.1; Application at Attachment 4, page 3/4 3-11. S/ Noither the Petition nor the Memorandum set forth any basis for a conclusion that those Technical Specification provisions fail to provido adoquate S/ The Technical Specifications also contain surveillanco test provisions that require Licensoos to test the HPPT response timo periodically to demonstrate that it does not exceed the limit. Technical Specification 4.3.1.3.
. . - _ . . - ~ . - . - - - -. - - . -
d assurance that the llPPT responso time will not excood 0.5 coconds.
3 In raising the threshold for admission of contontions in 1989, the Commission emphasized that an intervonor's obligation to submit with its contontions sufficient information to show the !
oxistence of a genuino issue would requiro intervonors "to road the portinent portions of the licenso application," identify the disputed information and, where it bo11ovos that the application is missing necessary information, "to explain why the application is deficient." 54 Fod. Rog. at 33,170 (Aug. 11, 1989). Tho ,
Commission included this requirement in section 2.714(b)(2)(iii) to procludo admission of a contention based on an unsupported claim that an application " fails to contain sufficient ;
information." If this requiroment is eliminated or "interproted away", the Commission's dotormination to raise the threshold for tho admissability of contor.tions would bo substantially frustrated.
The issue identified by the Board regarding IIPPT responso j time must, for the forogoing reasons, be dismissed.
l B. The Issues About Setpoint Drift Are Barred by 2LCER_i_2J.iB The second concern underlying Contention 1 focuses on the i
potential for setpoint drift herand the tolerance proposed in tho ;
l
- 12 -
l l
l - - . - - _ - - _ , - - _ - _ - _ -
i l
Application. 1D/ The thrust of the argumont is that sotpoint-I drift knynnd the proposed +3% toleranco could result in oxcooding the safety limit for Roactor Coolant System pressure. Monsures to assure that such tolerancos are not excooded are required by the In-Sorvico Testing ("IST") requirements of 10 CPR 2 S 50.5Sa(g)(4), and are also incorporated into Technical Specification Surveillanco Tost Requirement 4.0.5. Snc also Technical Specification Survo111anco Tost Requirements 4.4.2.2.
and 4.7.1.1. The necessary promise of the Contention's setpoint drift issues is that the IST/Survo111anco Test Requiremonts of l l
the regulations and the Technical Specifications do not provido i
adoquato assurance that the health and safety of the public will bo protected from the potential consequences of setpoint drift. 11/ '
10/ In fact, none of the matters encompassed in Contention 1, as admitted by the Board, expressos any concern about the safety of plant operations if Licensees comply with the proposed Technical Specification provisions; rather, their concern is solely with alleged riska if Licenseos operate
- the plant outside the proposed limits (i.e., with an HPPT responso timo greater than 0.5 seconds, with PSV sotpoint i
tolerancos nutside the range of +34/-1%, or with MSSV sotpoint tolerancos outside the rango of i 3%).
11/ It is clearly true that the IST requirements do not l guarantee against sotpoint drift. However, the safety significance of sotpoint drift must be considorod in context. The assurance of safety is provided not only by the IST, but also by a combination of conservativo assumptions required for the LOCV analyses, the moderate frequency of the ovent, and the capacity of the roactor coolant system to withstand pressures well in excess of the safety limit.
l l !
l l
l u -_ - - _ . - - - . . - - . - - . - - - . . - - - - - - -~
1 i
i Contentions challonging the adequacy of NRC regulations are inadmissible in 11conso amendmont procoodings. Florida P.cycr_A 2
Light _Co , 31 HRC at 534 (contention that licenso amondmont would decrease frequoney of surveillanco of safoty valvos to a lovel l that was still acceptablo under 10 CPR S 50.55a(g)(4) is an inadmissible challongo of a Commission regulation); Minalanipp.1 Power & Light.co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1), LBP 19, 19 NRC 1076, 1079-81 (1984) (contention that licenso amendmont would increase the calculated peak cladding temperaturo under postulated worst failure is not admissiblo whoro peak cladding temperaturo set by Commission rule would not be i
excooded). These decisions reflect the principle of 10 CFR S 2.750 that "any rule or regulation of the Commission . . .
shall not be subject to attack . . . in any adjudicatory l procooding involving initial licensing . . . . 12/
Jn adopting section 50.55a(g)(4) the Commission determined that those IST requirements will provido reasonablo assuranco that the public health and safety will be protected. However, Contention 1 seeks to add requirements, beyond those specified in section 50.55a(g)(4), to provide additional protection against <
safety valvo lift sotpoint drift. A contention that seoks to add requirements to those in the regulations is therefore not 12/ Section 2.758(b) allows exceptions for "special circumstancos," but in the prosent caso Petitioners mado no attempt to set forth any such circumstancos or to comply with the other requirements of section 2.758(b).
1
- 14 -
-r-- -n,,-e,---e,,,----ne,---,,vmm,,,-.,-,,, -r,-.w-, ---,,,---,,,,m.- ,-,e ,~w- , - . ,ew,,--,,-,.--,,,-,,- ,,w.--------r-
, ~ - . . - - - - - - --- ~s,
l 4
admissible. Long_ Inland _ Lighting _ Cat (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-87-12, 26 NRC 303, 394-95 (1987).
consequently, the aspects of Contention 1 that are based on concerns about notpoint drift must be rojected.
The Board rejected Licenseos' argument that the contention challengos the requiromonts of section 50.55a(g)(4) stating that even if the llPPT response time is accurato, sotpoint drift could cause the safoty limit to bo excoodod. The Board concluded that )
if the amondment woro approved:
inspection proceduros [ pursuant to 10 ;
CPR S 50.55a(g)(4)) would bo proparly.
applied to the Erong tolcranco rangen .
)
. . . [S)afety valvos with unacceptablo ,
tolerancos could bo placed back into j service without recalibration. Thon, with predictablo drift, undotected because of reduced samplo sizes and frequoney of inspection, tolorances will ;
exceed the safoty limits.
Memorandum at 23 (footnoto omittod).
The Board's reasoning, even if its factual promisos are correct, ignores the clear language and basis for 10 CPR S 50.55a(g)(4). This requiremont, incorporating by roforenco provisions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
("ASME") Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, does not purport to establish the acceptable toloranco rango; it specifies testing frequency and methods to verify that valvos remain operational based on toleranco limits that have boon ostablished indopondently of the IS1 requirements. The sotpoint toleranco rango is establithod pursuant to Gonoral Design Critorion ("GDC")
- 15 -
2 l
15, as interproted in Standard Review Plan ("SRP") 15.2.1-5, without any roforence to the IST requiromonts. The Application l
, shows that oven with the PSV and MSSV sotpoint tolerances revised !
i as proposed, and a reduction in the allowed HPPT response time, the plant moots the requirements of SRP 15.2.1-5. The Potition contains no basis for challenging this conclusion.
Finally, it should bo noted that the Board's explanation rolios heavily on Petitioners' concern that valvo tolerancos in the range from 11% to 13%, will be accepted and the valvos will j be returnod to servico without adjustment. Homorandum at 20 n.9,
- 23. At the prohoaring conforonco Potitioners' counsol explained '
this concern (Tr. 21-22) and Licensoos' counsel responded by I stating that Licensees intend to reset such valves to within the i 1% rango. (Tr. 41, 52-53). In accordance with direction from the Board, the partion attempted to settle Contention 1 on this basis but did not reach agrooment sololy becauso of Potitioners' remaining concern about the frequency of testing. Sen Joint i Report of Settlement Nogotiations, Apr. 22, 1991. Despite the absence of a settlement agreement, Licensees submitted a written commitment on the docket to roset the valvos in such l circumstancos. 13/
13/ Lotter to the Members of the Licensing Board from Alvin H.
Guttorman, May 1, 1991. Although Licensoos have committed to reset the valves in such circumstances, it should bo ,
recognized that Licensees made the commitment because they l view this as a prudent operating practico; it is not founded on any NRC requirement. Even in the absence of such a l commitment, Contention 1 would be inadmissible.
l
I The Board dotormined that it lackod jurisdiction to considor Liconsoos' commitment until becoming a hearing board (as opposov '
to an intervention board). Memorandum at 20 n.9. In Licensoos' view, this is not correct; it exalta form over substanco and could result in having a hoaring convenOo on a matter that is not in dispute. The responsibility of an intervention board under l section 2.714, as amended, in to datormino whether thoro is a genuino issue of material fact; thoro is no issue of fact or law rogarding rucotting of valvos found in the i 1% to 1 3% rango.
The purpose of the 1989 imondmonte to 10 CPR S 2.714 was to avoid a hearing in such circumstances.
l IV. Concluulen +
The proposed amondment would make the Technical Specifications moro consistent wi' 4 the performanco of plant !
equipment, and would be consistent with similar amendments ,
granted by tha NRC to other licensoos. Tho safoty analysos submitted in support of the amendment request show that the amendmont would moot NRC requiroments.
l The contention found admissible by the Board does not moet the requirements of 10 CFR S 2.714, as amonded, becauso it fails to identify a genuino issue of matorial fact or law: 4 (1) No basis has boon provided for the "issuo" regarding i
HPPT responso timo; and I
e l
l 1
l (2) Concerns related to sotpoint drift improporly challengo tho adequacy of the NRC's IST requiroments as not forth in 10 CPR S 50.55a(g)(4).
For those reasons, the Commission should roverso the Board's docision to admit conte,ntion 1, and should deny Potitionors' roquest for hearing. In so doing, the Commission will also communicato its conviction that the 1989 amondmonts to 10 CPR S 2.714 are meant to be rigorously applied so as to preclude essontially meaningless litigation before its licensing boards and the accompanying waste of public and privato resources.
l 1
l Respectfully submitted, e b- ----
May 28, 1991 Jack R. Newman liarold F. Rois Alvin 11. Gutterman John E. Matthews Howman & iloitsinger, P.C.
1615 L Stroot, N.W., Suito 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Licensees
\
P -
. ,v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUL% TORY COMMISSION , ,.
p ,, .yj t
) ,
. In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-528-OLA-2
) 50-529-OLA-2 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, ) 50-530-OLA-2 et al. )
) ASLBP Ho, 91-633-05-OLA-2 (Palo Verdo Nuclear Gonorating ) (Allowablo Sotpoint Station, Units 1, 2 and 3) ) Tolerance)
)
CERTIIICATE_QE_JiERVICE I hereby cortify that on May 28, 1991, copios of
" Notice of Appeal" and "Brief of Licensoos on Appeal of LDP 19" in the abovo-captioned procooding woro personally sorved, unless otherwiso indicated, on the following.
Chairman Kenneth M. Carr U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockvillo Piko Rockville, Maryland 20052 Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission !
One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike ;
Rockvillo, Maryland 20052 Commissioner James R. Curtiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Commissioner Forrest J. Remick U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Whito Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, :*aryland 20852 i
- - - - - -- - ~ - - -
J l
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atoniic Safety and Licensing Doord Panel ,
Adjudicatory File U.S. Nuclear Rogulatory Commission Ono White Flint North 11555 Rockv1110 Piko Rockville, Maryland 20852 (two copies)
Offico of tho Socrotary U.S. liuclear Regulatory Commhssion One Whito Flint North '
11555 Rockvillo Piko Rockv1110, Maryland 20852 Attention: Chief, Docketing and Servico Section (Original plus two copios) ,
Administrativo Judge Ivan W. Smith, Chairman i Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ;
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn East West / West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Dothesda, MD 20814 Administrativo Law Judge 1
Jerry R. Klino Atomic Safoty and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Rogulatory Commission :
East West / West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bothosda, MD 20814 Administrativo Judge Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 881 West Outer Drivo Oak Ridge, TN 37830 t (Federal Express)
Edwin J. Rois, Esq.
Lisa B. Clark, Esq.
Offico of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ono Whito Flint North l 11555 Rockvillo Pike l Rockv1110, Maryland 20852 l
_ . _ _ . , _ _ .~
1
. liancy C. Loftin, Esq.
Corporato Socrotary and Corporato Counsol Arizona Public Service Cornpany P.O. Box 53999 Hall Station 9068 Phoenix, AZ 05072-3999 (Fodotal Express)
David K. Colapinto, Esq.
Counsel for Allen & I.inda Mitcholl Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C.
$17 Florida Avonuo, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001 h
Alvin li. Gutterman Howman & !!oltzinger, P.C.
Suite 1000 1615 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 May 28, 1991
.