ML20086B000
| ML20086B000 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1983 |
| From: | Silverman D HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8311160214 | |
| Download: ML20086B000 (9) | |
Text
_
j e
00CNETED USNRC l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 iDf 15 51:07 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 0FFICE OF SECRETARY 00CXETING & SEPVICT, ERAllCH In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER
)
Docket Nos. 50-498 OL COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-499 OL
)
(South Texas Project, Units 1 )
and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO CCANP'S MOTION FOR NEW CONTENTION-I.
Intipduction i
By motion dated October 20, 1983 Citizens Concerned-About Nuclear Power (CCANP) requested that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) admit a new contention in the South Texas Project (STP) operating license proceeding, related to alleged instability of the soil beneath the STP
~
site.*/
Based upon a balancing of the factors set forth in 10 CFR S 2.714 (a) (1) for admission of a late-filed contention, CCANP's Motion should be denied.
4 1
II.
Argument 10 CFR S 2.714 (a) (1) provides_-that the following factors must-be evaluated in considering whether to admit a-late-filed contention:
. */
CCANP's proposed contention alleges that."[t]he soil beneath-the South Texas Nuclear Project is not sufficiently stable to ensure the safe operation of the plant over the projected time span of that operation in-accordance with 10'C.F.R. Section 50.57 (a) (3) (i)."
CCANP Motion for New Contention-(October 20,_1983) at 2 (Motion).
l 8311160214 831100 PDR ADOCK 05000498 PDR
_ G_
.m
~
' (i)
Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
(ii)
The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
(iii)
The extent to which the peti-tioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(iv)
The extent to which the peti-tioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v)
The extent to which the peti-tioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
Good Cause CCANP argues that there is good cause for its delay in submitting its proposed contention because "[t]he events providing the basis for [the] contention occurred within the last three months."
Motion at 3.
More specifically, CCANP asserts that a report filed by Houston Lighting & Power (HL&P) on August 25, 1983, pursuant to 10 CFR S 50.55 (e),
provides " sufficient evidence to warrant inquiry into the stability of the soil" beneath the STP.
Id. at 1.
CCANP's Motion ignores the report's express statement that "[t]he current RCB differential settlement is well.within allow-able limits for structural considerations."
Id., Attach-ment 2 at 1.
CCANP's argument that the August report raises, for the first time, a question about the stability of soils uat the STP site isusimply incorrect.. Soil stability;wasJaddressed I
v-
in detail in the PSAR and FSAR for STP.
In fact, similar issues were raised by CCANP in Phase I of this proceeding more than two years ago.
The STP PSAR contains extensive information on soil stability and the potential for, and implications of, settle-ment of STP structures.
The PSAR states that settlement will occur, provides design criteria for differential settlement and tilt, and commits to a monitoring program to verify design predictions and provide ample warning before applicable design criteria are exceeded.
The FSAR provides even more extensive information on settlement of STP struc-tures, including documentation of the tilting of STP struc-which has actually occurred.*/
Thus it is evident that the subject has been treated extensively in STP licensing documents, and that such information was available to CCANP long before filing of the 50.55 (e) report upon which it now relies.
Indeed, CCANP itself raised questions regarding soil stability in the Phase I proceeding.
CCANP introduced Exhibit 30 which is a letter dated February 3, 1981 from Mr. Oprea of HL&P to Mr. Seyfrit, Director, NRC Region IV, on the subject of-tilting of the Mechanical Electrical Auxiliary Building (MEAB) basemat.
That letter indicated
-*/
Pertinent PSAR sections are 2.5.4.10.3 and 2.5.4.13.1.
Sections 2.5.4.10.3, 2.5.4.11, 2.5.C.4.5, and 2.5.C.4.6 of the FSAR are also relevant.
l'e that applicable design criteria for tilting had been exceeded, but that corrective measures had brought the condition back within tolerance.
CCANP Exhibit 30 at 1-2.
During the Phase I hearings, witnesses were examined by CCANP's repre-sentative, as well as others, regarding settlement of the soil under the Unit 2 MEAB, and the stability of the backfill and underlying natural soil.
See e.g.,
Tr. 6026-30, 6033-41, 6125-27 (Pettersson, Hedges).*/
Furthermore, it is clear that the 50.55(e) report raises no new question regarding soil stability.
On the contrary, the report again confirms (as does the data reported in the FSAR) that soil stability has been accurately assessed.**/
In view of the foregoing it is clear that good cause for 1
admission of this late-filed contention cannot be, and i
has not been, demonstrated.
In the absence of good cause, CCANP must bear a particu-larly heavy burden with respect to the remaining factors to be considered.
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
(West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI-75-4, 1 NRC-273, 275 (1975), Project Management Corp.
(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant),
ALAB-354, 4 NRC 383, 389 (1976).
-*/
Soil stability and differential settlement were also considered in detail at the construction permit stage
.and the Applicants'~ monitoring program was specifically approved.
Houston Lighting & Power Co. (South: Texas Project Nuclear. Generating Station) Partial Initial
' Decision, 2 NRC 271,-314-16'and Initial Decision, 2.
(
NRC 294, 902.(1975).
- /
It is also worth noting that,Lon the_ basis of subse-quent analysis, it appears that the condition identified
~~
in the 50.55(e) report has'no safety or operational-significance.
A second report will.be filed by February-16, 1984.
h.
e.
Availability of Other Means to Protect CCANP's Interest CCANP also argues that only admission of its contention will protect its interest.
Motionlat 3.
On the contrary, l
HL&P, as described above, has committed to a program which monitors settlement at the site.
The data recorded are reported to the NRC and the Staff's continuing review of that data provides ample protection of CCANP's interests.
CCANP's Contribution to the Development of a Sound Record CCANP argues that, absent admission of its late-filed contention, "the record in this proceeding will be seriously incomplete."
Id.
However, CCANP has no technical expertise on soil stability, and has not indicated that it will obtain I
a witness with such expertise..There is therefore no basis I
for concluding that CCANP could make a contribution to the
}
record on this point'if the contention were'otherwise admissable.
Furthermore, as previously noted, the existing record on soil stability is substantial and CCANP has identified no need to supplement that record.
Thus, this I
i factor weighs against admission of CCANP's proposed contention.
Extent CCANP's Interest Will be' Represented by Existing
^
Parties There is no substance to the concern. raised by CCANP 3
and, in our view, no legitimate 4 interest to be represented
~
in connection therewith..Of course,'the Applicants' program-t
.,-r y
e w
i
, i to monitor soil settlement will continue and the data developed will be reviewed by the NRC Staff.
Extent CCANP's Contention Will Broaden the Issues or Delay the Proceeding Finally CCANP itself recognizes that its proposed contention "would open a new area of inquiry."
Id. at 4.
Obviously, consideration of soil stability and differential settlement of STP structures would inject a new, highly technical issue which is unrelated to the issues currently before the Board, and unwarranted in view of the conclusion in the 50.55(e) report that current levels of differential settle-ment are "well within" allowable limits.
Id., Attachment 2 at 1.
Consequently, admission of CCANP's proposed contention would result in an unwarranted expansion of the pending hearings.
Thus, this factor also weighs against CCANP.
r III. Conclusion CCANP has failed to provide good cause for its. delay in submitting the proposed contention particularly in light of the already extensive information in the licensing record on soil stability, as well as CCANP's prior introduction of evidence on this topic in Phase I of this proceeding.
Furthermore, the 50.55 (e) report upon which it relies clearly indicates that current levels of differential settlement are well within allowable limits for structural considerations.
CCANP has also failed to make persuasive arguments with
respect to the other relevant criteria for admission of a late-filed contention.
Accordingly, CCANP's Motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, Ir41 %
i Jack R.
Newmanu Maurice Axelrad-Alvin H.
Gutterman Donald J.
Silverman 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
1 Washington, D.C.
20036 i
Finis E. Cowan j
3000-One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 1
Dated:
November 8, 1983 ATTORNEYS FOR HOUSTON LIGHTING
& POWER COMPANY, Project Manager LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS of the South Texas Project acting
& AXELRAD, P.C.
herein on behalf of itself and 1025 Connecticut Avenue, the other Applicants, THE CITY OF N.W.
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, acting by and Washington, D.C.
20036 through the City Public Service Board of the City of San Antonio BAKER & BOTTS CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, 3000 One Shell Plaza and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS Houston, Texas 77002 S
P
{
o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER
)
Docket Nos. 50-498 OL COMPANY, E_T A_L.
)
50-499 OL (South Texas Project, Units 1 )
and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Response to CCANP's Motion for New Contention" have been served on the following individuals and entities by deposit in the United States mai l, first class, on this 8th day of November, 1983.
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Brian Berwick, Esq.
Chairman, Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing for the State of Texas Board Panel Environmental Protection U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division Washington, D.C.
20555 P.O.
Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb, III Administrative Judge William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
313 Woodhaven Road Harmon & Weiss Chapel Hill, NC 27514 1725 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 Ernest E.
Hill Administrative Judge Kim Eastman, Co-coordinator Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Barbara A. Miller University of California Pat Coy P.O. Box 808, L-46 Citizens Concerned About Livermore, CA 94550 Nuclear Power 5106 Casa Oro Mrs. Peggy Buchorn San Antonio, TX 78233 Executive Director Citizens for Equitable-Lanny Sinkin Uti'ities, Inc.
114 W.
7th, Suite 220 Route 1, Box 1684 Austin, TX ~78701 Brazoria, TX '77422 4
(
-h
4 2-Robert G. Perlis, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal l
Board U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.
S.
Nuclear Regu atory Commission
~
Washington, D.C.
20555 M
We v
I 4
l l
4
.+a e
7
$