ML20138D359

Response to Applicant 851122 Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Memorandum & Ruling on Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 7.Staff Supports Request for Reconsideration

ML20138D359
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	12/11/1985
From:	Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20138D364	List: ML20138D359 ML20138D371
References
CON-#485-463 OL, NUDOCS 8512130200
Download: ML20138D359 (3)

Text

0 -

Decemb:r 11, 1985

~

c m re f UNITFn STATES OF AMERICA ~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'85 DEC 12 NO:31 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD NCNIIIEr,'.. '.I '

In the Matter of GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-424

--et al. ) 50-425

' ) (0L)

(VogtleElectricGeneratingPlant,)

Units 1 and 2) ,. )

. 5' NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO

" APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 7" ,

I INTRODUCTION On November 22, 1985, Applicants filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the Licensing Board's November 12, 1985 " Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 7 re Groundwater Contaimination)." (Order) The Board, in its November 12th Order granted in part and denied in part " Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Joint Intervenors' Contention 7 (Gr6undwater)," which was filed on July 15, 1985. The Board ruled that several genuine issues of material fact remained to be heard. One of these issues involves groundwater travel time'. Applicants have moved for reconsideration with respect to that limited issue. For the reasons noted below and in the attached Affidavit of Gary B. Staley, the NRC Staff supports Applicants' motion.

G s' '

0 i

II DISCUSSION [

As noted by Applicants in its motion, the Board's ruling was based on Savannah River Plant (SRP) reports that Joint Intervenors had cited to suggest that Applicants' groundwater travel time methodology might underestimate travel time. The SRP reports discussed groundwater velocities computed by a one-dimensional model similar to that used by Applicants, groundwater velocities computed by a three-dimensional finite'-difference mqdel, and groundwater velocities measured by tracer tests. -

}

Based on its review, the Board stated, "the simple one-dimensional model used at SRP gave a maximum estimated velocity of 32 ft/yr in the Barnwell Formation, whereas observed values in separate studies had maxima of 69 and 72 ft/yr." Order at 28 (emphasis added). The Board, thus, concluded that a one-dimensional model may underestimate groundwater e

velocity and lead to large errors. Ld.at28-29. As noted in Applicants' motion, and in the attached affidavit of Gary B. Staley, the 32 ft/yr computed velocity, however, was not a maximum. Rather, it was an average velocity -- one based on "an overall average gradient." See DPST-83-829, Vol. , at 3-24. See also id. at 3-21'(using the same methodology and equation to calculate " average hor.izontal velocity" in the McBean Formation). It thus appears that this average velocity was calculated using a unif'orm, hypothetical hydraulic conductivity as an illustration of the hydrologic characteristics of sands in the Barnwell Formation. The range of measured velocities in the Barnwell Foundation, 2.3 to 69 ft/yr, appears entirely consistent with this illustrative computed average velocity. A properly computed average velocity

(

j divided into the flow path distance will produce an accurate travel time estimate.

The St'aff agrees with Applicants' conclusions that 1) the SRP studies cast no doubt on the reliability of the one-dimensional groundwaterflowmodelemployedbyApplicants,and2)thereisnobasis to question Applicants' methodology, and consequently no genuine issue of material fact exists.

. ~.-

III CONCLUSION For the reasons note above, the Staff supports Applicants' request that the Board reconsider its November 12, 1985 Order to the limited extent of eliminating groundwater travel time as an issue to be heard with respect to the litigation of Contention 7.

Respectfully submitted, M d4,0cv Bernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this //flday of December, 1985 e

(

4

- , r ._ __ ..y.-__ . - - -