ML20148T196
| ML20148T196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1978 |
| From: | Newman J LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812040350 | |
| Download: ML20148T196 (12) | |
Text
_.
..i 4
NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT lt00M ff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
@h
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND' LICENSING BO
+
% n.*
o~
In the. Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO " STIPULATION BETWEEN NRC STAFF AND JOHN F.
- DOHERTY, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF THE ARMADILLO COALITION OF TEXAS, HOUSTON CHAPTER" i
Applicant files this response to the " Stipulation Between the NRC Staff and John F.
Doherty, Individually, and on behalf of the Armadillo Coalition of Texas, Houston Chapter," (hereinaf ter, stipulation) and submitted to the Board on September 29, 1978.
I.
INTEREST ( STAND T""
The stipulation recites an agrt=ur.unt between the NRC Staff and the Petitioner that standing is established on the basis that Mr. Doherty and three other members of the Armadillo Coalition of Texas (hereinaf ter " ACT")
" live in the vicinity of the site of the proposed plant."
The stipulation further states that the only members of the Houston Chapter of ACT, other than Mr. Doherty, are the three individuals named in the original. Petition to Intervene.
1 o (OSSO G
- The NRC Staff in its initial response (filed July 17, 1978) to the Petition to Intervene raised a number'of questions' relating to ACT's legal existence.
Among other things, the S taf f noted that "no informa-tion has been provided regarding the organization or its. members" and that the " purpose of the organization is not specified."
The Applicant's Response to the Amended Petition by ACT filed September 28, 1978, (hereinaf ter " Applicant's Response") raised the same questions.
The stipulation does nothing to allay these concerns.
Admitting as a party to this proceeding, an " organization" scarcely more than a small discussion group mocks the Commission's processes.
Applicant is of the view that ACT (Hous ton Chapter) may not actually exist beyond an informal discussion group of four people and that the petition for leave to intervene is, in effect, filed on behalf of the four-named individuals.
Petitioner must demonstrate the existence in fact or law of the organization, specifically its Houston Chapter, and whether the named individuals pay dues or'otherwise demonstrate the indicia of membership in the state organization.
Without some further clarifica-tion in this regard, ACT, as an organization, should not be admitted as a party intervenor. - See, Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant', Units 1 and 2) Memorandum and Order of the Licensing Board (August 14, 1978).
,.m
-m
.-,....._,._m..
. _.. ~.. -,,
I
-- 3 --
As to Mr. Doherty and the other three named individuals, the questions raised in the Applicant's Response, pp.
2-4, are not answered by the conclusory statement in the first sentence of the stipulation under the heading " INTEREST (STANDING)".
Accordingly, the stipulation, and therefore the petition for-leave to' intervene should be denied based upon a failure to establish petitioner's standing.
II.
CONTENTIONS Contentions 1 and 2 Contention 1 asserts that ACNGS will no' meet Candssion requirements with respect to radioa-
'. u e n t s (the " low as reasonably achievable" standar 1 sis for the contention is that more
- effective
,. ant could reduce both gaseous and liquid 4
effluents.
The facts asserted, even if true, would not form the basis for an admissible contention.
What Petitioner seeks is more restrictive NRC standards reflecting some hypothetical equipment improvements for the control of radioactive releases.
As such, the contention is a direct challenge to the provisions of the Comnission!s regula-
- tions set forth in 10'CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
Contention 2 more clearly neeks action by the Commission to further restrict the releases of radio-active effluents to the environment.
It, too, is a challenge to the Commission's regulations.
As noted w
e m
+,,-,e
+-
n,or
~.,
,y ww w
y
--,n,,,,y, n,,,,p.,yny,e,,.y,-m
..p.,
y w-p e.
mr mwe q--,4
by the' Staff in its filing of September 29, 1978, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate "special circumstances" pursuant to 10 CPR $2.753 which would justify a challenge to the regulations: therefore, these contentions must be excluded.
Contention 3 Petitioner. alleges that the fuel rod specific energy limit is too high based on unidentified tests which " indicate" cladding rupture at an energy deposi-tion as low as 147 cal /gm.
As pointed out in Applicant's Response, p.
10, the vagueness of this assertion makes it imoossible to discern whether it is based on new information or evidence.
Indeed, the stipula-tion does not allege that it is based on such new information or evidence.
The facts are that the acceptance criteria value for " prompt failure" of 280 cal / gram was adopted in the NRC Standard Review Plan, Section 15.4.9, issued September, 1975.
A value of 280 cal /gm was selected as a conservative design limit based on experimental data generated through the Special Power Excursion Reactor Tests-Subassembly Test Program _ (SPERT).
This program, contracted for by the Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC Contract At.
(10-1)-1230),
began in 1967. Based on SPERT data, all fuel clad perforations (an event much less severe that prompt failure) occurred at energy depositions above 170 cal /gm
/
- / For purposes of evaluating the~ radiological consequences associated with a rod' drop accident (the limiting event),
a conservative value of 170 cal /gm is employed as a cladding perforation threshold.
See PSAR Section 15.1.3a.
~.
with the exception of test number 568 which showed a j
perforationsthreshold of 147 cal /gm.
Test pins 567 and 569, which had irradiation exposures very close to that of pin 568 were subject to more severe transients and their perforation thresholds were 225 and 300 cal /gm, respectively.
The results of these tests were reported by the Idaho Nuclear Experimental Laboratories in "The Effects of Burn-up on Fuel Failure". IN-ITR-113, and distruauted in August, 1971.
These tests were sub-sequently referenced in a General Electric topical report entitled " Rod Drop Analysis for Large Boiling Water Reactors," NEDO-10527, dated March, 1972.
The preceeding summary shows that Petitioner is attempting to support this contention with a single, discrete data point generated in tests conducted and made public years before December, 1975.
This " contention" must be rejected; it fails to identify any new evidence or information as required by the Board's Order.
Contention 4 Contention 4 should be excluded.
It presents no litigable issue since the Applicant must, and indeed is willing to stipulate, that it will comply with whatever NRC requirements are ultimately established with respect to the ATNS generic issue.
Litigation of this issue in this proceeding will serve no useful purpose.
Contention 5 Petitioner claims in contention 5 that the location of the Control Rod Drive Mechanism Hydraulic Unit and the Traversing in Core Probe in ACNGS makes these systems vulnerable to suppression pool uplift.
- t v.-n e
y t-r m se
--..,.e-
,g
..-~mr g
w -,
m~
y-,-,m..s-y ge-e-v4 -
y,p, qg.r-y---.ye-
-avey
~
t
- 6c
' Contention 5 is opposed by.the'NRC Staff in its
. September 29, 1978, filing'on grounds that it is not'
-based upon new information.
The Staff notes that these t
two systems remain in the same location as prior to the ACNGS-deferral of the application in 1975 and therefore 7
this issue could have been raised prior to December, 1975.
- See, e.g.,
SER,.S6.2.1.6.
In addition, as noted in the Applicant's Response to the Amended ACT Petition, (p. 14) the matter of hydrodynamic loads created by pressure suppression pool lift have been under study by the NRC since 1973, and in April 1975 letters were sent to all applicants and licensees, including the Appli' cant, requesting a review of their designs against these loadings.
General i
Electric submitted the result of tests which defined the loads on these structures in NEDO-11314, "Information Report of the Mark III Containment Dynamic Loading,"
i in July, 1975.
Accordingly, the problem was well known prior to December 1975 and cannot qualify as "new information" or "new evidence."
Contention 6 This is not a contention at all.
Instead, the stipulation notes the commitment of the
-Applicant to provide a decoupler device to prevent the destructive overspeed'of the recirculation pump motor.
]
The ~ stipulation goes on to describe measures which have been taken by the Applicant'to assure that impeller
(
ndssiles will not penetrate the pump case and that the ejection of the impeller ndssiles through the open end n.
s
. -. -,.... _, ~ ~ -
of the broken pipe will be prevented-by certain additional
- pipe supports and restraints.
It is true that the Applicant has committed to.these measures and'the design basis for this phenomenon is spelled out in PSAR Sections 5.5.1.4 and 3.5.2.
This information was submitted by amendment to the PSAR on April 1 and August 2',
1974.
If Petitioners have an assertion.regarding any specific inadequacy of the measures. committed to 1%/ the Applicant. based on new'informa-I tion, they should so state.
As set forth in the stipulation, Contention 6 does not even raise a specific litigable issue of fact, much.less identify any new pertinent evidence.
Accordingly,. Contention 6 should be excluded.
Contention 7 Petitioner alleges in contention 7 that injection into the core of cold water from the suppression pool by the Low Pressure Coolant Injection System after an accident is "an unnecessarily high risk to Petitioners' safety'and environment interests."
In its Response, the Applicant noted that the subject matter of what is now Contention 7 in the stipulation could not.be traced to any "new information" or "new
~
evidence."
The Staff, in further discussions with the i
. Petitioner, has obviously been unable to obtain from the Petitioner an identification of the "new information" or "new evidence" upon which the contention is based.
Tho' Staff concludes, notwithstanding extensive discussions
,4--,
4,--,
,! v -
r
,_..,.,y,,.,
..w...,..,.,.-
-y e
.......w,wy...--
,me,
.p y e,
r i.9, y
.w,,,my i
4-8-
with the Petitioner, that "the Petitioner has not, and cannot, demonstrate that this contention is based upon new information."
The Applicant further notes tnat or.4 or to December, 1975, the ACNGS PSAR included the same luaguage as S5.3.3.7.4 of the GE Standard Safety Analysis Report.
In that section, an evaluation was made of the inadvertent operation of the emergency core cooling system which evaluation includes LPCI injection of suppression pool water.
The Applicant supports the S taf f's position and urges that this contention be excluded.
III.
CONCLUSION Having failed to establish standing both ACT as i
an organization, and the individual members identified in the Petition filed by Mr. Doherty should be denied status as a party intervenor.
Even if the Board finds other. wise on the matter of standing, the Petition as modified by the Stipulation between the NRC Staff and ACT, should be denied because it fails to state a single contenticc meeting the requirements of the Notice of Hearing ih this proceeding and the supplemental Orders of the Board requiring that contentions be related to
" changes in plans for ACNGS" or "new information" or "new evidence."
l i
_ 9 Respectfully submitted, (L
f' CLd7~
l November 13, 1978 Jack R.
Newman Robert H. Culp 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 J.
Gregory Copeland Charles G.
Thrash, Jr.
3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Attorneys for Applicant
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY OF COUNSEL:
LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 BAKER & BOTTS 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 c;
,_c.,_.-.
UNITED STATES OF^ AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CC:CIISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SArETY AND LICENSI"G BOARD
.In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO".PANY
)
Docket No. 50-466
)
(Allens Cro :k Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1).
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicant's Responsc to
" Stipulation between MRC Staff and John F.
Doherty, Individually, and on behalf of the Armadillo Coalition of Texas, Houston Chapter" were served on the following by deposit in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, or by hand delivery this 13 th day of November 197 8 :
Sheldon J. Uolfe, Esq., Chairman Richard Lowerre, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel for the State of Texas U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O.
Box 12548 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr.
E.
Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A Hon. Jerry Sliva, Mayor Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 City of Wallis, Texas 77485 Mr. Glenn-O. Bright Atomic-Safety and Licensing Gregory J.
Kainer Board Panel 11113 Wickwood
'U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston, Texas 77024 Washington,.D.
C.
20555 Chase R.
Stephens Atomic Safety and Licensing Docketing and Service Section Appeal Board Office of the Secretary'fo the.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Commission U.S. Muclear. Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D.'C.
20555 4-e
,L--
-,y,
,.r,
.,,,rv
,y_--,y..,q,.,p.,p.g
.y we.
,,e-.ms rynw-.
i 6
e 2-1 R.
Cordon Gooch, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Baker & Botts' Board Panel 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
" S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.
C.
20006 Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Steve Schinki, Esq.
Staff Counsel T.
Paul Robbins U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory c/o AFSC Commission 600 West 28th Street, #102 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Auston, Texas 78705 John F.
Doherty Wayne E.
Rentfro Armadillo Coalition of Texas P.O.
Box 1335 4438 1/2 Leeland Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Houston, Texas 77023 Brenda A.
McCorkle James Scott, Jr.
6140 Darnell 8302 Albacore Houston, Texas 77074 Houston, Texas 77074 Emanuel Baskir Carro Hinderstein 5711 Warm Springs Road 8739 Link Terrace Houston, Texas 77035 Houston, Texas 77025 Steven Gilbert, Esq.
Jean-Claude De Bremaecker 122 Bluebonnet 2128 Addison Sugar Land, Texas 77478 Houston, Texas 77030 Brent Miller Edgar Crane 4811 Tamarisk Lane 13507 Kingsride Bellaire, Texas 77401 Houston, Texas 77079 John V. Anderson 3626 Broadmead Patricia L.
Day Houston, Texas 77025 2432 Nottingham Houston, Texas 77005 John R.
Shreffler 5014 Braeburn Lois H. Anderson Bellaire, Texas 77401 3626 Broadmead Houston, Texas 77025 Robert S.
Framson 4822 Waynesboro Drive David Marke Houston, Texas 77035 Solar Dynamics, Ltd.
3904 Warehouse Row Madeline Bass Framson Suite C 4822 Waynesboro Drive Austin, Texas 78704 Houston, Texas 77035 r-
=
r - Wyor w
e w-g
-,c--+-+
+-----f w
as Twwme-%
F-ett m
'-+g 4
. Shirley Caldwell Mrs.
R.
M.
Bevis 14501 Lillja 7706 Brykerwoods Houston, Texas 77060 Houston, Texas 77055 Ann Wharton Kathryn Hooker 1424 Kipling 1424 Kipling Houston, Texas 77006 Houston, Texas 77006 Joe Yelderman, M.D.
John Renaud, Jr.
Box 303 4110 Yoakum Street Needville, Texas 77461 Apartment 15 Houston, Texas 77006 D. Michael McCaughan 3131 Timmons Ln.
Allen D.
Clark Apartment 254 5602 Rutherglenn Houston, Texas 77027 Houston, Texas 77096 Lee Loe D.
Marrack 1844 Kipling 420 Mulberry Lane Houston, Texas 77098 Bellaire, Texas 77401 Alan Vomacka, Esq.
George Broze Houston Chapter, National Lawyers 1823-A Marshall Street Guild Houston, Texas 77098 4803 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 11 Charles Michulka, Esq.
Houston, Texas 77006 P.O.
Box 882 4
Stafford, Texas 77477 Hon. John.
R. Mikeska Austin County Judge P.O.
Box 310 Bellville, Texas 77418 fAAAs~---.
/
- -. _ _... ~,, _ -,...
.. _