ML20125A488
| ML20125A488 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1975 |
| From: | Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| References | |
| ALAB-107, NUDOCS 9212080364 | |
| Download: ML20125A488 (17) | |
Text
IL
(' -)
/
gy7 fc1].
I M
~
e er 2
2 6
AUg 51975 > 3r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o.+. '. i*1 'C*7 o.a g
"& f 11e f ore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 2.77 g
s ! cb In the Matter of
)
)
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY )
Doc ke t No. 50-263
)
(Monticello Nuclear
)
Generating Plant, Unit 1)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
'JPCA's Motion Concerning Anticipated Transients Without Scram hearing session in the above-On May 7, 1975, during a captioned proceeding, Intervenor Minnesota Pallution Control A v.e nc '. (MPCA) filed with the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Roard) and parties a document entitled m,'n iss ion 01 Additional Contentions."
The contentions caiwd therein related to the Applicant's analysis of the unsequences of anticipated plant transients in the event a postulated ! 't i lu re to scram.
At the request of the o: r<
'dPCA i iied, reframed contention in the form of a r w l on o.
Revised Additional Contention" (hereafter, contention C.1) on May 14, 1975.
In response to the coquests of the parties on May 15, 1975 (Tr. 1817), the
- m i, aneced to deler its ruling on MPCA's motion to admit Contention C.I.
in order to permit all parties to have the oppoctunity to file vcri t ten legal arguments. Thereafter,
- i h2060364750805 o
ADOCK 05000263 PDR
i
- 1 2
t (the
, lune 2,- l 975, Nori he en S La1es power. Company,
on and the Nucicar Regulatory Commission Staff Applicant) each filed a response to MPCA's submission of (the Stall) the additional contention.
In addition MPCA filed a memo-randum of law dated June 3,
- 1975, By way of background, it is to be noted that one'of MpCA's contentions in this-proceeding (Contention II-33) to the appropriateness of the was admitted as a challenge st all assertions of low probability of Class 9 accidents Pur-forth in the Final Environmental Statement.
as set between counsel for the Stafi.and MPCA',
suant to an agreement t he S taf L's prepared testimony on Contention II-33. was two kinds of Class 9 accidents, limited'to consideration of failure and anticipate'd transients without scram pressure vessel testimony on ATWS was considered during the (ATWS).
The Staff's
~
1975.
evidentiary hearing in-this proceeding on May.6 and 7, MPCA's motion to introduce additional ATWS.
As noted above, the eviden-
-contentions was presented during.the course of tiary hearing on May 7, 1975.
Contention _C.
1, as revised is as follows:
li 4
~
e-e.
w m
r e-e m,
4 e
we w.e--e
,-'m-,-
m
. ~ = ~.
.-. - = ~ _ -.. -.... _ -.
I i
3-The Monticello_ plant, as it.is currently engi-neered and operated, does not conform to the Staff's salety objective with regard to the probability'of 1
ATwS.
Therefore, the plant should be modified so as.
to reduce the probability of such incidents'.
The basis for the contention is stated to be' the following:
(1)
" Supplemental Testimony of Nuclear Regulatory Commis=sion Staff on Contention II-33," particularly pp. 3 and 92.
(2)
" Technical Report or Anticipated Transients Without Sc ram f or Water-Cooled Reactors," WASil-1270, which is referenced in the Supplemental Testimony and was served.
on the parties along with the Supplemental Testimony.
(3) Cross-examination of Starf witnesses (Tr, at 104'3-1049).
(4)
" Ant.icipated Transients Without Scram: Study for the :,lon t icell o Generating plant," NEDO-20846.
(5) 1,etter of April 1,
1975, from L.O.
- Mayer,
- .la m :_<e r of Nuclear Support Services, Northern States power Company to A.
Giambusso, Direc tor, : Division of. Reactor Licensing, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In its-response, Applicant requests that the Board reject Contention C.1 because it is overly vague as well-as being premature.
With regard to the latter,.' Applicant argues that WAsil-1270 makes i t clear that for'the-Monticello
'y,-
m-vc w,+.w e, ww g
.-,..,,y-,,w+w,,-,,,
v.yc.,w,__y,,,,w--.y,,,,,,,w-,,,,w7w,,,ey w,.,,,,.,,,.v,.-.--,,-e-,
y,w.,w.,,m-w,m,
,,,%,y,,w,,e m.,
re,.,y c.w e9-
-.. ~... -
4 plant (and ot hors. in.its' category), '" t he Stal f 's position its safety. objective is to be determined by the as-to a
Start on an individual case basis," and that.the Staff evaluation which has not yet been done for Monticello, will take from four to six months to complete.
The Staf f ~ supports the admission of MPCA's Contention C. 1 as an issue in controversy in this proceeding and the Board to find that MPCA has shown good cause for urges the nontimely filing of ' the contention.
The sufficiency of Contention C.1 must be measured against the requirements of 10 CFR 52.714 of the Commis '
sion's Rules of Practice.
In accordance with $2.714(a),.the' contention must be stated with reasonable specificity and with some basis provided.
Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units.1 and 2)
ALA3-107, RAI-73-3 at 188, 194 (March 29, 1973).
If the t iling is nontimely,tne petitioner must also-make a substan-ttal showing of good cause.for failure to file-on time, he believe that Contention C.1 is clearly stated with reasonable specificity and with sufficient basis provided.
.(See:
Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Power Station,. Units 1 and 2) ALAB-146, RAI-73 at G31, 633 (September'14,~1973);
Public Service
-Electric and Gas Company (Salem Nuclear Generating Station,.
l c
=w
, ~
..,4,.-
, h,r.
..,--w.,.,,
v...~v,,..,.,
,,,,,,.--,.y.
,.y
.,.r,,,.,,b..,-..,.-,,-w_,.wn,,a,em.....mww.,,-,%,..-.,,,,--..~w,,+-,,~-.r_,.,--,Y,1.... -,,
5 lintis I and 2) AI All-136, RAl-73-7 at 4H7, 489 (,tuly 12, 1973)).
In order to determine whether MpCA has shown good cause for the late t iling of the revised contention, it is necessary to consider the history of the ATWS matter as it relates to the Monticello plant.
In September, 1973 the Sta r f issued a " Technical Report Antic
- pated Transients Without Scram (ATWS) for Water-on Cooled power Reactors", WASH-1270.
This Report established three categories (A, B, and C) of nuclear power reactors and t o A I'WS preneribed " programs of implementation" with respect considerations for each category.
(Id. Appendix A), Monticello ialls within Category C, applicable to plants for which neither nor the Advisory Connission's Saiety Evaluation Report the Reactor Saleguard's Report at the construction amistce on s
pernit stage identified ATWS as a matter under review, l'or is t e e. o r s, C plants the Staff required submission by October 1, AThS consequences and reviews of reactor
.1 analyses 01 the Statf would determine u n u i d bv. u system design.
Thereafter, t ni wd tor plant changes on "an individual case basis".
ild.,
p.
90)
- - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - ~ - - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
6 Pursuant to hASil-1270, the Applicant submitted on October 1, 1974, a review of the design of Monticello's reactor protection system (NEDO-20G35, " Evaluation Report--
Failure Vulnerability of Reactor Protection Common Mode Instrumentation for the Monticello Nuclear Generat-System and was granted an extension until April 1, ing Station")
1975 to file its analysis of ATWS consequences.
On April 1, 1975. the Applicant filed this analysis in a document entitled " Anticipated Transients Without Scram Study for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant" (NEDO-20846).
the its revised contention is based upon MpCA states that the Applicant's April 1, 1975 submittal on ATWS consequences (including the covering le tter thereto) and the testimony the recently completed hearing session.
of Start witnesses at In NEDO-20846 the Applicant's vendor (General Electric) clearly states that "... if a serious ATWS event is postu-the conditions could exceed the General Electric
- lated, guidelines without plant changes". (p 3)
For that reason, G
E.
continues,
... minimal plant modifications are considered in this analysis".
G.E.
then proceeds to enumer-ate the tollowing plant modifications:
recirculation pump trip. feedwater pump trip, and modification of the Automatic The Staff concluded after review-Depressurization System.
for the analysis submitted was not ing NEDO-20846 that "...
It was for a hypo-the tacility presently constituted.
- _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
... ~..
v 7
thetical facility."- '(Tr. 1054) The report does not,-there-fore.-comply with the-requirements: set forth in WASil-1270,.
i.c.,
an analysis.of ATWS consequences based-on existing-Monticello configuration.
(Appendix A, particularly-pp. 89-90)
A further conflict between the Staff and Applicant regarding ATWS was revealed in the April 1, 1975 submittal' and the Staff's' response thereto at the recent hearing.
The Applicant, despite its recognition that plant changes-will be necessary to accommodate serious ATWS events, concludes in its covering letter (p. 2) that "... we do not believe backfitting of Monticello is presently warranted."-
Responding-to that conclusion a Staff witness stated that the letter does not' agree with the prescnt Regulatory-Staff position'that backfitting is required for'the Mon'ticello facility." (Tr. 1143)
I( is apparent, therefore,-that-MpCA-could not have-known the Applicant's position on whether backfitting is required until it received, at theLsame time as the-Staff, the April 1, 1975 report.
Nor could MpCA_have known the-S4att's position on backfitting until it heard the testimony of t_he - St a f 1 at.the-recent hearing session.
+
--m'e e 'e.
u Iswe-e iw-ses,--e vwe,-
eee-e=w----: -ww e.
,nou a.y n +
--,,m
,s--,,
v
,e er --
,.,igw--,,
-,gy w.w.,,,-,i,,,
y
, -. -f* = ttvsu ? B " e r' 7-9'-'*-
T z'f T-*T ' Tmw"M'M" ' Y'
7-4 8
Section 2.714 of-10 CFR establishes a standard for admission of nontimely filings. 'That standard requires a petitioner'to make "a substantial showing of good cause" to justif y the lateness of his/her actions.- Four factors are set out, to which the Board-must give special consid-eration.
They are:
(1) The availability of other means whereby t he pet it ioner's interest will be protected.
(2)
The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(3)_ The extent to which petitioner's. interest will_be represented by existing parties.
(4)
The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues.or delay the proceeding.
While it is true that WASil-1270 his been available for
- s. ome one and one-half years, its application to this pro-ceeding and to this-plant was finally established only in the Staff's testimony on MPCA Contention II-33, served on the parties in late February, 1975.
Further, it_was'not s
until the receipt _of the Applicant's April.1,-1975 letter transmitting NEDO-20846, that.MPCA became aware that'the-r Applicant's position-on this issue;was:in such fundamental conflict with that of_the. Staff. --Until that. time,-MPCA-might-have determinedLthat the Applicant and the Staff could come to agreement as to the appropriate retrofitifor.
b
- .=,-__ --
9 Montleello, thereby negating the necessity for the Board to consider this matter.
Finally, it was not until MPCA's cross-examination of Staff witnesses during the recent evidentiary session in this proceeding, that the conflict betveen the Applicant and the Staff became direct and obvious, and therefore became an issue to which MPCA coald legitimately and appropriately respond.
In view of the above, the question of tardinrss does not arise MPCA has act ed as expeditiously r ; possible in an el f ort to bring the issue before the Board as soon as its scope and details became clear to MPCA.
An examination of the factors cited in 10 CFR 2.714 s hov s that MpCA's contention C.1 should be admitted as an issue in this proceeding.
no other means by which the safety of the There are
'!onticello plant in the event of an ATWS and the extent of tLe consettuences of such an event can be considered Iully a;
putil i cl y before an impartial tribunal such as this Atomic Safety and 1.icensing Board.
With regard to whether
'1pC A 's participation on this issue may ascist in develop-ing a sound record, had MPCA not raised this issue, there would be no record at all.
Similarly, one cannot cc.c. _ue that as to MPCA's interest in the matter of ATWS ovents and
~.
k 10 their consequences can be adequately. represented by
" existing parties."
While there is an obvious confli.3t-between the Applicant and the Staff-on thistissue, if MPCA's contention is not admitted, there will be.consid-eration of this' issue before the Board, but no party will represent MPCA's position.
Tne Appeal Board has provided poine guidance as to-the extent to which delay in the proceeding should' preclude consideration of new issues.
In considering a motion to reopen the record, the Appeal Board in the Matter of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation'(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50-271, ALAB-124, RA I - 7 3-5 ~, 358 at 365, said:
In this same vein, the applicant has suggested that-the effect-of granting the motion to. reopen would be to permit intervenors to seize upon, as a justification for reopening a hearing, every letter which the staff,-in the exercise-of
-its continuing reguintory responsibility, sends to an applicant.
Thus, according--to the applicant,.an intervenor would be able to prevent indefinitely the termination of the proceeding and the rendition of an initial decision authorizing the issuance of an operating-license.
- -. _ -. - - ~ _.
6 H
-1l 11 j
=1 We cannot accept the applicant's un9tated premise that the desirability of-completing the
-hearing outweighs the need to resolve potentially se ri ous safety matters..This is so even_though the stari believes that the matters. raised by - a let t er do not. warrant consideration -in the-- hearing but instead can be handled by the staff outside the hearing process.
The intervenors have every right, in presenting contentions for consideration, to rely.upon consequential safety matters brought to light by the staff's technical experts.
In short,-delay in the issuance of an operating license at t ribut able to an intervenor's ability to
-present to a licensing board legitimate contentions based on serious safety problems uncovered by the stall would establish not that the licensing system is beinn frustrated, but that it is working properly.
Any delay in such a situation would be fairly attrib--
utable not to the intervenors but to'the non-readiness of the facility I'or operation.
Delay in the issuance of the licetse is entirely appropriate -- indeed, mandated -- in that circumstance.
(Emphasis added )
The iacts giving rise to this decision are closely-l analogous to the extant situation and the decision should br dispositive of any argument based on delay.
As-in the Wrmont Yankee' decision, the intervenor, here MpCA,_
l l_
has raised aefore the Board a serious safety question.
l l
Indeed. an argument based on delay is even weaker in this procc.' ding since the record in this proceeding has not been c l ose d, so any inconvenience or prejudice attendant to admission of the contention is surely less than it would l-have been in the Vermont Yankee setting.
I t
1
s _. _
1 12 More general guidance as to the standard which the Board must use has'also been provided by the-Commission.
Its order of September 29, 1972, in Matter of Indiana and-Michigan Electric Company (Donald C, Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) has long provided a precedent for Licensing Boards in considering new issues.
The. Commission said; we note our longstanding - practice of permit ting-amendments to petitions to_ intervene.for good cause shown.
Unless special considerations-dictate otherwise in specific circumstances, new information appearing in previously unavail-able documents would generally constitute good -
cause for amendment, assuming of-course that the request to amend is expeditiously presented and is otherwise proper.
Such determinations rest _in-the sound discretion of the Licensing Board.
(Emphasis added.)
As noted earlier, MpCA's Contention C.1 is_. based on documents and information available only shortly befor'e-tae motion to add the contention.was made.-
Therefore, according to the Commission's standard, MPCA has-made a tully satisfactory showing of " good cause" for11ts-filing-of Con ten tion C.1 at this point in the. proceeding.
Because-the issue raises _a serious safety-question, any possible-r
- delay in the issuance of Monticello's full term operating license due to admission of this contention is entirely-
'ndeed, mandated.
Accordingly, MPCA's motion-i
~
appropriate---
is granted ~ and Contention C.1 is admitted as an issue in-t his proceeding.
.,~
t 4 13 Appendix I Implementation AtTMonticello; the course of the hearing the Commission' issue'd-a During t
new regulation, Appendix I to 10 CFR 50.
Inasmuch as=manyof radioactive.
MpCA's contentions were directed at-quantities'-of l
elfluents released by the Monticello plant and the attendent health effects, the Board asked the parties.for guidance as the new regulation should be applied -in this proceed--
to how Oral arguments were heard on two occasions during the ing.
recently concluded session of the hearing, 'Counse1~for Applicant argued that with the adoption-of Appendix I, the Interrenor's contentions' dealing with "as low as practicable" were mooted; and that the hearing should be concluded'without those contentions, _Ile pointed out that under Appendix-I',
the Applicant had a ehoice of. options. (1) The Appendix I, Section Il guides could be met by the plant or.(2) the Appli-caat could demonstrate that the - rad ioact ive. cmission.lf rom-
~
-: he plant youi.' be kept "as low as--practicable" as provided in Sec.
I.
The Board was advised that Applicant was not prepared 1o slate which option it would choose at-this; time.
Further Applicant has until June 4, 1976 to' submit its proposa11 f or necting Appendix I guides.
MPCA argued that whether the-present contentions are moot depends.upon the. option. chosen j
by the Applicant.
Thereiore, counsel for MpCA movedIfor l
l a.-
-a
.~-
~~~---~~__ _ _ _
~ ~ ' ' - - - - ~ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
14 the to submit new contentions and suggested that permission the Applicant has submitted its record be held open until time for complying with Appendix 1, so that at that proposal its contentions or MPCA would be in a position to revise choose to withdraw them.
The NRC Staff counsel is of the but urges that contentions are moot, opinion that present record be held open and that MPCA be given an opportunity the to submit revised contentions.
We The Board has carefully weighed all arguments.
is an important compliance with Appendix I consider that However issue and is the heart of the MPCA's contentions.
for the presentation of we do not believe that a requirement i t further testimony would be productive prior to the rece p for implementation.
Therefore, the Applicant's proposal o!
d Board has de termined to hold the record open in this procee -
the Appendix I issue is possible.
ing, until resolutica of the Staff has agreed to keep the The Board notes that couing months while revised advised during the Intervenors i
l technical specifications are being considered and a f na The Board is prepared by the NRC Staff.
pasition document to reach a to work together in an attempt urges all parties If at Intervenor's contentions.
the stipulation concerning any time it becomes apparent to any party that such an
'~
-l 15 t ha t llie Appl ican t 's proposal a g h eme u l i s not possible, or f or complying with Appendix I is not satisfactory to either-the Stal'1 or Intervenors, we will entertain a motion f or-the hearing for the receipt of--further evidence reconvening on this issue.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Y. W Robert M. Lazo "9
Chairman i
led a: Bethesda, Maryland f
l
[
hi 51 h day of August, 1975.
' ~
. ~..
4 I
UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA
'l
-Ntict. TAR CIT.t'l ATORY r0M*! IFS TON In the ;;atter of
) ~
\\
~)
)
Docket No.(s) 50-263 j
NORTilERN STATES POWER COMPA!!Y 1
i
)
(Mon,ticello !!uclear Generating Plant, Unit No. 1)
)
)
)
J
)
CERTIFICATE rT SE""'CE I have this -day served the foregoing document (s)'
I hereby certify that compiled by upon cach person designated on the official service listthe 2-accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part Rules of Practice, of the Nucicar Regulatory Cor=tission's Rulcs and Regulations.
Dated at Washington, D.C.
this
__h day of 197[.
f?1h 2
~L dBAk'4 Of fice fif/ tfic Secretary of-the CommissTon
<[
i L
l e
N
' C'
.y m.
~~
' ' * * ~
... ~
~
']
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO?S!ISSION In the Matter of
-)
).
1
)
. Docket l'o. (s) 50-263 -
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
)
)
(Monticello Nuclear Generating
)
Plant, Unit No. 1)
)
)
-)
SERVICE LIST Howard J. Vogel, Esq.
Robert M. Laro, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Legal-Counsel 2750 Dean Packway U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 55416-Washington, D. C.
20555 Minneapolis, Minnesota Mr.-Steve J.Gadler-Dr. Richard F. Cole 2120 Carter Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Saint Paul', Minnesota 55108-U.,S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor aission Washington, D. C.
20555 Del L Ph E%
~
City Attorney's Office Dr'. Walter H. Jordan City Hall, 638 8S1 W. Outer Drive Saint Paul, Minnesota.55103 Oak Ridge, Tennessec 37830 Honorable Sandra S. Gardebring Joseph F. Scinto, Esq.
Special Assistant Attorney General-Counsel for NRC Staff n Control Agency s a 5
1935 W. County Road - B2 Was in Roseville, Minnesota 55113~
Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
J. E. Silberg, Esq.
Geoffrey P. Jarpe, Esq.
,Shaw, Pittman, Potts, Trowbridge Maun, Hazel, Green, Hayes, Simon
^
and-Madden and Arctr
> 910 17th Street, N. W.
Hamm-Building, Suite 332 Washing; ton, D. ' C. - 20006 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 b
The Environmental Conservation V
ic
&G al Counsel Library Northern States Power' Company Minneapolis Public Library 414 Nicollet Mall n p1 esota 55401 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 l
l.
4.
9
'.k
. - -,