ML20207H859

Memorandum & Order Denying Rorem 860623 Motion to Admit late-filed Contention on Overstress of Structural Columns at Facility.Served on 860723

ML20207H859
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	07/23/1986
From:	Fgrossman H, Grossman H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	ROREM, B.
References
CON-#386-085, CON-#386-85 79-410-03-OL, 79-410-3-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8607250122
Download: ML20207H859 (6)

Text

O -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  !;hfD NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: 00Cfh, BR It/Ch MIy' stim Herbert Grossman, Chairman A x n Cal n SERVE 0 JULA396

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-456-0L

) 50-457-OL COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY ASLBP No. 79-410-03-0L l

(Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. I and 2) July 23, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Late-Filed Contention on Overstress of Structural Columns)

On June 23, 1986, Intervenors Rorem, et al . , moved the Board to admit a late-filed contention concerning overstress cf structural columns at Braidwood. In the alternative, Intervenors asked the Board to defer ruling on admission of the contention pending an initial NRC Staff report on anonymous allegations purportedly made by a field engineer at Braidwood, and received by Intervenors in the mail on June 23, 1986.

BbO7250122 g60723

{DR ADOCK 05000456 PDR 3509

W We deny the admission of the late-filed contention on application of the Five-Factor Test set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a).

MEM0RANDUM The proposed new contention is based on a letter dated June 19, 1986, purporting to be from a field engineer at Braidwood, received by Intervenors' counsel on June 23, 1986. The letter alleges that the structural columns at Braidwood are overstressed due to the addition of "many new dead and live loads" not in the original design, but added due to rework. The alleger states that no program has been started to analyze the columns for these additional loads and to reinforce accordingly. The alleger contends that the probable cause for this omission is "the almost impossible task of reinforcing these columns due to the fact that you have members framing into the columns on all 4-sides". The alleger further contends that a major earthquake would lead to a " major structural failure," with main floors falling in and a crushing of pipelines of aM sizes, instrumentation lines, control lines, valves, and other equipment.

Applicant opposes the admission of the late-filed contention and Staff joins in that opposition.

1

s

)

Factor (i)

Applicant agrees that there appears to be good cause for the extreme late filing of Intervenors' proposed contention, since it is solely based on an anonymous letter received by Intervenors' on June 23, 1986.

The Board also agrees.

Factors (ii) and (iv)

Applicant likewise agrees, and we concur in this, that there are no other means by which Intervenors' interest will be protected, and that this interest will not be represented by existing parties.

Factor (iii)

We further agree with Applicants that Intervenors have not demonstrated that their participation in litigating this proposed contention may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record. Their own involvement thus far in the subject matter of the contention is as a recipient of the anonymous letter. They have no independent knowledge of the matters alleged and no expertise to evaluate those matters. We do not disagree with their assertion

, - - . , - , - - . - - . , - - . - - . - ,,-n - - , ,-.,-,,,,--,.,,,,,c - - - - - - --- , w.--

(Motion at 3) that if the anonymous alleger's contentions are true, "they appear to raise an extremely serious question about whether Braidwood is safe to operate." However, even if that were the case, Intervenors offer no basis for believing that their participation in a hearing of this contention would assist us in determining the truth or falsity of the claims. Intervenors lack expertise in this area and offer only that, in the event that the contention is admitted, they will retain witnesses with expertise in structural engineering. Id.

d at 3. Furthermore, Intervenors lack even the knowledge of whether a program exists to analyze structural columns for additional loads and must rely upon an initial report from the NRC Staff on whether such a program exists and is being implemented.

In evaluating Intervenors' ability to contribute to a sound record, we do not confuse the anonymous alleger with the Intervenors.

Although the allerger may possess expertise in the area and have specific knowledge of the alleged defects (though that, too, is not i

established in the pleading), there is no indication that this

( expertise or knowledge would be used on behalf of Intervenors if the contention were admitted.

We weigh this factor heavily against Intervenors.

,- - - g -- , ,g nn-,.,.ee-- , . , , - - - - - . - -

h t

Factor (v)

Intervenors admit that this new contention would clearly broaden and delay the proceeding. We agree. As Applicant suggests (Response at 9), litigation of this issue would entail significant discovery and would require the preparation of detailed expert testimony, even for purposes of summary disposition.

Balancing the Five Factors Although Factors (1), (ii) and (iv) weigh in favor of the admission of Intervenors' late-filed contention, they are of little weight compared to Factors (iii) and (v). Because Intervenors have failed to demonstrate that they could be expected to assist in developing a sound record and because the delay to the proceeding would be considerable if the contention were admitted, we balance the five factors as weighing against the admission of the contention.

ORDER For all of the foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is, this 23rd day of July, 1986, l

,7 , _ - . - , _ _ _ _ , . _ - - . - . - - - - , _ , - . , - . _ _ - . - . _ ...,,,_r- -

t 0

ORDERED, (1) That Intervenors' motion to admit late-filed contention on overstress of structural columns is denied, and  !

(2) That Staff is directed to make an initial review of the anonymous allegations to determine if they have any substance and to report its conclusions to the Board.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

-_ =

Herbert Grossman, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE I Bethesda, Maryland, July 23, 1986.

l i

.- . ._, -m. _._ _ . _ , _ _ . . _ , . . - . .,_...-_____.-____.._-m . , _ _ . _ _ - , , _ _ _ , . _ _ _ - ~ ,,i-