ML20093H240

Reply Opposing Campaign for Prosperous Georgia & Georgians Against Nuclear Energy 840927 Response to ASLB Memorandum & Order on Special Prehearing Conference.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20093H240
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	10/12/1984
From:	Blake E GEORGIA POWER CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:
References
CON-#484-460 OL, NUDOCS 8410160212
Download: ML20093H240 (8)

Text

-

9-i'4_-

DCCKETED USNRC October 12, 1984

'84 0CT 15 A0 59 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

In the Matteriof )

) Docket No. 50-424 GEORGIA' POWER CO., et al. ) 50-425

) (OL)

(Vogtle Electric-Generating' Plant, ).

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO CPG /GANE RESPONSE TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE I. Introduction

?On September 27, 1984, Intervenors Campaign for a Prosper -

'ous Georgia / Georgians Against Nuclear Energy filed a " Response to Memorandum and Order on Special Prehearing Conference."

This response. contained 1 objections to the Board's rulings on Contentions 10.2 and 11, and requested amendment of the Board's

'Prehearing Conference' Order.

On October 5, 1984, Applicants filed a Motion for Leave to

' File' Reply. The Board' granted this motion on October 9, 1984..

Accordingly, Applicants reply as follows.

8410160212 841012

' PDR ADOCK 05000424 O PDR 3)S:cD3

x e

i II. Contention 10.2 In this subcontention, Intervernors alleged that synergistic effects in environmental qualification had not been considered by Applicants. Applicants responded that 10 C.F.R. 5 50.49(e)(7) requires consideration of synergistic effects only "when these effects are believed to have a significant ef-fect on equipment performance." Applicants indicated that they complied with this directive and had identified cable as such

. equipment. ' Applicants also pointed out that Intervenors did not identify any equipment for which synergistic effects should have, but had not, been considered.

The Licensing Board agreed that Intervenors had indeed failed to identify any equipment or component alleged to be susceptible to synergism, and it denied the contention as lacking specific basis.

Intervenors now state that their contention applied to any component containing PE or PVC and assert that "it would be im-possible for CPG /GANE to identify all of the components containing these materials. . . .

(Emphasis added). Appli-cants note, however, that Intervenors have not attempted to identify any equipment or component that is subject to environ-mental qualification requirements, that contains PE or PVC, and for which synergism has a "significant effect on equipment per-formance." In such case, the Board correctly ruled that this

?

a.

contention lacked specific basis.1/

With respect t,o cable, Intervenors also assert that an af-fidavit which Applicants prepared in an attempt to assuage In-tervenors' concerns did not indicate certain test parameters.

This assertion, however, is irrelevant to the admistibility of the contention. The contention was denied because Interve-nors' contention did not acknowledge or address Applicants' testing program. That the FSAR identified cable as subject to

' testing for synergism was simply ignored by Intervenors in their contention.

Additionally, Intervenors attempt to divert attention from their failure to satisfy pleading requirements by asserting that Applicants should have provided more information. Appli-can.ts, however, identified all equipment (cable) which Appli-cants believe to be susceptible to a significant synergistic effect on ' performance. If Intervenors believed that other equipment is subject to a significant synergistic effect, they 1 had the burden of so stating. If Intervenors had specific a

1/ Int'ervenors, as the proponent of an order admitting their contention, have the burden of persuasion. See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.732. They must demonstrate that they satisfy the pleading requirements--basis and specificity. At the pleading' stage, Applicants are simply not required to prove their case with respect to proposed contentions, and could not do so with respect to contentions that are too vague to provide Applicants notice of that again it which Applicants need defend.

../.,

t

• f f

• k- r, ,\ <t . - - - , r.._ .,. , _ , ,,,,__.__m _ _ _ , _ , .

e

, concerns with methods of testing for synergistic effects,2/

they should have raised such concerns in their contention.

Contention 10.2 was properly rejected.

III. Contention 11 In Contention 11, Intervenors alleged that Applicants had failed.to consider defects in the Vogtle steam generator sys-tem. Intervenors referred inter alia to corrosive effects that are the subject of NRC Unresolved Safety Issues (USI) A-3 through A-5.

Applicants responded by referring to the specific sections of the FSAR that addressed these problems and pointed out that Intervenors had not satisfied the pleading requirements set forth in Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Unitt 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 N.R.C. 760, 773 (1977). Interve-nors did not address the fashion in which Applicants dealt with these issues.

During the Prehearing Conference and in CPG's Second Amendment to Contention 11, Intervenors for the first time 2/ In its affidavit, Applicants did not specify synergism test parameters because such parameters did not appear to be of concern to Intervenors. The SANDIA report to which Intervenors referred addressed test sequence and the use of an inert test environment. If Intervenors had other concerns, they made no attempt to revise their contention te raise such concerns; they certainly failed to provide Applicants notice against that'which Applicants had to de-fend.

attempted to address the Vogtle design and Applicants' FSAR.

However, they did so merely by quoting sections of Applicants' FSAIR; and as Applicants pointed out in its " Response to New In-formation Submitted by GANE and CPG in Support of Their Pro-posed Contentions," (June 11, 1984), the sections quoted by In-tervenors were taken out of context. Intervenors provided no basis for doubting the efficacy of Applicants' use of all vola-tile treatment, Applicants' inspection program, and Applicants' steam generator design in minimizing corrosion. The Licensing Board agreed that Intervenors had not indicated the manner in which these specific measures were inadequate.

Intervenors now attack the Board's ruling, but they do no more than repeat the same contention and assertions. The gra-vamen of their complaint is that the FSAR does not unequivo-cally demonstrate that corrosion could not occur. In essence, they quibble with the language used in the FSAR.

Such an argument does not satisfy Intervenors' pleading responsibilities. It neither demonstrates the safety signifi-cance of this contention, nor specifies why the manner in which Applicants address corrosion is inadequate. River Bend, ALAB-444, supra, 6 N.R.C. at 773. At this pleading stage, it is the Intervenors who have the burden of persuasion. See note 1 supra. The Licensing Board was correct in rejecting Contention 11.

9

' n M-t IV. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, Intervenors' objections to and request for amendment of the Prehearing Conference Order should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE Ernest L. Blake, l$ $kh P.C.

Jr'.,

David R. Lewis Counsel for Applicants Dated: October 12, 1984 .

9 J

J

't

,,-vr ,-v -- ---,r-, , - - - - - , , ,,g.rw.-,--,,,,.. . - , . - . , , , , - ,.,,,,a~-wr-,, . , , --e.v--eme- ,,-m,y,-,, ,nn - , , - , , - , , ,

?

s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,.

' f{Qr-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OCi l5 A!0:59 In the Matter of ) U.

Dockek{$owg, lci cf.

) ~ 24

, . GEORGIA POWER COMPANY .

) SR4, 425/

(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )

Units 1 and 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Reply to CPG /GANE Response to Memorandum and Order on Special Prehearing Conference", dated October 12, 1984, were served on those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the Unitad States mail, postage prepaid.

W. h-Ernest L. Blake, Jr., P.C.

DATED: October 12, 1984 l

e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NLCLEAR REGULATORY CCM4ISSION BEFORE THE AlmIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

GEDBGIA POWER COMPANY, g AL. ) Docket Nos. 50-424

) 50-425 (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

SERVICE LIST Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Atcnic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Docketing and Service Section Atmic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccrmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.

Atmic Safety and Licensing Board Office of Executive legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ca mission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.- 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Tim Johnson Panel Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Camission 175 Trinity Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Atlanta, GA 30303 Douglas C. Teper Carol A. Stangler 1209 N. Decatur Road 425 Euclid Terrace Atlanta, GA 30306 Atlanta, GA 30307 Jeanne Shorthouse Dan Feig 507 Atlanta Avenue 1130 Alta Avenue Atlanta, GA 30315- Atlanta, GA 30307 Iaurie Fowler & Vicki Breman Iegal Environmental Assistance Foundation 1102 Healey Building -

Atlanta, GA 30303 E