ML19347F494: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:- - _ . _ | {{#Wiki_filter:- - _ . _ | ||
p.' ' | p.' ' | ||
5/8/81 e g t' | |||
5/8/81 | |||
e g t' | |||
poetseri M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - - | poetseri M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - - | ||
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ! | NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ! | ||
g-g g jgg , f - | g-g g jgg , f - | ||
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD meses. [7 g aser. | BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD meses. [7 g aser. | ||
In the Matter of 4 g HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket N 66 S 9 ~ Qc, (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S V/ | |||
In the Matter of 4 g HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket N 66 | |||
S 9 ~ Qc, (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S V/ | |||
Station, Unit 1) S l APPLICANT'S REPLY TO DOHERTY RE CONTENTION NO. 56 I% O /p ~ | Station, Unit 1) S l APPLICANT'S REPLY TO DOHERTY RE CONTENTION NO. 56 I% O /p ~ | ||
Q % % g7 % | Q % % g7 % | ||
2 | 2 On April 23, 1981, Mr. Doherty file g ent entitled "Intervenor John F. Doherty Contention No. 56". | ||
On April 23, 1981, Mr. Doherty file g ent | |||
entitled "Intervenor John F. Doherty Contention No. 56". | |||
Although the document is not styled as a. motion, Applicant t.> resumes that it is a motion to add a late filed contention. | Although the document is not styled as a. motion, Applicant t.> resumes that it is a motion to add a late filed contention. | ||
l For the reasons stated below, Applicant opposes the motion. | l For the reasons stated below, Applicant opposes the motion. | ||
Line 49: | Line 34: | ||
NRC report does not apply to Mark III containments such as j Allens Creek. The report referenced by Mr. Doherty is a March, 1981 report which addresses a potential concern | NRC report does not apply to Mark III containments such as j Allens Creek. The report referenced by Mr. Doherty is a March, 1981 report which addresses a potential concern | ||
1 . | 1 . | ||
regarding the effects of a postulated scram discharge volume (SDV) rupture. The report postulates that the rupture could lead to an uncontrolled blowdown outside primary contain-ment, thereby causing a flood in the equipment room and a resultant failure of ECCS pumps. Unlike the Mark I and Mark II designs, the Mark III is designed such that the CRD 4 | |||
hydraulic control units and the SDV are inside the primary containment. Therefore, water released from an SDV rupture will return directly to the suppression pool which precludes flooding of the ECCS pumps because they are outside the primary containment. In sum, Mr. Doherty has not provided any explanation as to w. An SDV rupture is of concern to a plant such as Allens Creak; therefore, there is absolutely no basis for the contention. | |||
regarding the effects of a postulated scram discharge volume | |||
(SDV) rupture. The report postulates that the rupture could lead to an uncontrolled blowdown outside primary contain-ment, thereby causing a flood in the equipment room and a resultant failure of ECCS pumps. Unlike the Mark I and Mark | |||
II designs, the Mark III is designed such that the CRD 4 | |||
hydraulic control units and the SDV are inside the primary containment. Therefore, water released from an SDV rupture will return directly to the suppression pool which precludes flooding of the ECCS pumps because they are outside the primary containment. In sum, Mr. Doherty has not provided | |||
any explanation as to w. An SDV rupture is of concern to a plant such as Allens Creak; therefore, there is absolutely no basis for the contention. | |||
Applicant does not consider it necessary to engage in an extended discussion of the factors to be considered pursuant to Section 2.714 of the Commission's Rules of l Practice, because the alleged problem has nothing to do with Allens Creek. Applicant would only emphasize that the injection of any new issue into the proceeding at this late 1/ The Mark III primary containment is designed to ac-commodate several postulated break sizes including small primary breaks such as a SDV rupture. | Applicant does not consider it necessary to engage in an extended discussion of the factors to be considered pursuant to Section 2.714 of the Commission's Rules of l Practice, because the alleged problem has nothing to do with Allens Creek. Applicant would only emphasize that the injection of any new issue into the proceeding at this late 1/ The Mark III primary containment is designed to ac-commodate several postulated break sizes including small primary breaks such as a SDV rupture. | ||
1 | 1 | ||
0 . | 0 . | ||
date will necessarily cause a delay in the ultimate conclu-sion of the proceeding. Given this fact, any new issues | date will necessarily cause a delay in the ultimate conclu-sion of the proceeding. Given this fact, any new issues | ||
^' | ^' | ||
Line 83: | Line 46: | ||
able scrutinty and the Board should demand a very clear basis for the contention. That basis is totally absent in this case. | able scrutinty and the Board should demand a very clear basis for the contention. That basis is totally absent in this case. | ||
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant opposes the admission of Doherty Contention No. 56. | For the foregoing reasons, Applicant opposes the admission of Doherty Contention No. 56. | ||
Respuctfully submitted, OF COUNSEL: / , . | Respuctfully submitted, OF COUNSEL: / , . | ||
4 Grego eYafd BAKER & BOTTS ott E. oz ell 3000 One Shell Plaza 00 On Sh 1 Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 ouston, T xas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS Jack R. Newman . . | 4 Grego eYafd BAKER & BOTTS ott E. oz ell 3000 One Shell Plaza 00 On Sh 1 Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 ouston, T xas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS Jack R. Newman . . | ||
& AXELRAD Robert H. Culp | & AXELRAD Robert H. Culp | ||
' 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Dsvid B. Raskin Washington, D.C. 20036 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W. | ' 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Dsvid B. Raskin Washington, D.C. 20036 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W. | ||
Washington, D.C. 20036 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT _ | Washington, D.C. 20036 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT _ | ||
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY | ||
~ . . | ~ . . | ||
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORi* COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S S | |||
4 | |||
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORi* COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD | |||
In the Matter of S S | |||
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S | ||
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S Station, Unit 1) S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Applicant's Reply to Doherty Motion Re Contention No. 56 in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the fol-lowing by deposit in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, or by hand-delivery this 8th day of May, 1981. | (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S Station, Unit 1) S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Applicant's Reply to Doherty Motion Re Contention No. 56 in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the fol-lowing by deposit in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, or by hand-delivery this 8th day of May, 1981. | ||
Line 117: | Line 65: | ||
- - . . . , . . - - - - - . - - - - - . , - - _ _ , - ,--n-..,,--,- . . - . - - - ~ - , , - . . . - c --- . - ,n-..-n--- . . . - . . - - - - , - - , . . . - . . ~ . - | - - . . . , . . - - - - - . - - - - - . , - - _ _ , - ,--n-..,,--,- . . - . - - - ~ - , , - . . . - c --- . - ,n-..-n--- . . . - . . - - - - , - - , . . . - . . ~ . - | ||
s' e | |||
s' | |||
e | |||
Bryan L. Baker Brenda McCorkle 1118 Montrose 6140 Darnell Houston, Texas 77019 Houston, Texas 77074 J. Morgan Bishop W. Matthew Perrenod 11418 Oak Spring 4070 Merrick Houston, Texas 77043 Houston, Texas 77025 stephen A. Doggett Wayne E. Rentfro . | Bryan L. Baker Brenda McCorkle 1118 Montrose 6140 Darnell Houston, Texas 77019 Houston, Texas 77074 J. Morgan Bishop W. Matthew Perrenod 11418 Oak Spring 4070 Merrick Houston, Texas 77043 Houston, Texas 77025 stephen A. Doggett Wayne E. Rentfro . | ||
P. O. Box 592 P. O. Box 1335 l | P. O. Box 592 P. O. Box 1335 l Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 John F. Doherty William Schuessler 4327 Alconbury 5810 Darnell Houston, Texas 77021 Houston, Texas 77074 Ca,ro Hinderstein James M. Scott 609 Fannin, Suite 521 13935 Ivy Mount Houston, Texas 77002 Sugar Land, Texas 77478 D. Marrack 420 Mulberry Lane Bellaire, Texas 77401 | ||
Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 John F. Doherty William Schuessler 4327 Alconbury 5810 Darnell Houston, Texas 77021 Houston, Texas 77074 Ca,ro Hinderstein James M. Scott 609 Fannin, Suite 521 13935 Ivy Mount Houston, Texas 77002 Sugar Land, Texas 77478 D. Marrack 420 Mulberry Lane Bellaire, Texas 77401 | |||
: h. /M J. Grego elaAd | : h. /M J. Grego elaAd | ||
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ - . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . , _}} | __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ - . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . , _}} |
Latest revision as of 00:43, 31 January 2020
ML19347F494 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
Issue date: | 05/08/1981 |
From: | Copeland J BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
References | |
NUDOCS 8105190443 | |
Download: ML19347F494 (5) | |
Text
- - _ . _
p.' '
5/8/81 e g t'
poetseri M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION !
g-g g jgg , f -
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD meses. [7 g aser.
In the Matter of 4 g HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket N 66 S 9 ~ Qc, (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S V/
Station, Unit 1) S l APPLICANT'S REPLY TO DOHERTY RE CONTENTION NO. 56 I% O /p ~
Q % % g7 %
2 On April 23, 1981, Mr. Doherty file g ent entitled "Intervenor John F. Doherty Contention No. 56".
Although the document is not styled as a. motion, Applicant t.> resumes that it is a motion to add a late filed contention.
l For the reasons stated below, Applicant opposes the motion.
l As Mr. Doherty has done on numerous prior occa-l sions he has referenced an alleged problem at an existing nuclear plant and has concluded that the problem is likely to occur at the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
Again, however, Mr. Doherty has failed to draw any connec-tion between the NRC's investigatic a of the Browns Ferry plant (and similar BWR's) and the design of ACNGS. h 5 The fact is that the safety concern raised by the
//
NRC report does not apply to Mark III containments such as j Allens Creek. The report referenced by Mr. Doherty is a March, 1981 report which addresses a potential concern
1 .
regarding the effects of a postulated scram discharge volume (SDV) rupture. The report postulates that the rupture could lead to an uncontrolled blowdown outside primary contain-ment, thereby causing a flood in the equipment room and a resultant failure of ECCS pumps. Unlike the Mark I and Mark II designs, the Mark III is designed such that the CRD 4
hydraulic control units and the SDV are inside the primary containment. Therefore, water released from an SDV rupture will return directly to the suppression pool which precludes flooding of the ECCS pumps because they are outside the primary containment. In sum, Mr. Doherty has not provided any explanation as to w. An SDV rupture is of concern to a plant such as Allens Creak; therefore, there is absolutely no basis for the contention.
Applicant does not consider it necessary to engage in an extended discussion of the factors to be considered pursuant to Section 2.714 of the Commission's Rules of l Practice, because the alleged problem has nothing to do with Allens Creek. Applicant would only emphasize that the injection of any new issue into the proceeding at this late 1/ The Mark III primary containment is designed to ac-commodate several postulated break sizes including small primary breaks such as a SDV rupture.
1
0 .
date will necessarily cause a delay in the ultimate conclu-sion of the proceeding. Given this fact, any new issues
^'
submitted by an intervenor must be locked at with consider- -
able scrutinty and the Board should demand a very clear basis for the contention. That basis is totally absent in this case.
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant opposes the admission of Doherty Contention No. 56.
Respuctfully submitted, OF COUNSEL: / , .
4 Grego eYafd BAKER & BOTTS ott E. oz ell 3000 One Shell Plaza 00 On Sh 1 Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 ouston, T xas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS Jack R. Newman . .
& AXELRAD Robert H. Culp
' 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Dsvid B. Raskin Washington, D.C. 20036 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT _
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
~ . .
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORi* COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S S
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S Station, Unit 1) S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Applicant's Reply to Doherty Motion Re Contention No. 56 in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the fol-lowing by deposit in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, or by hand-delivery this 8th day of May, 1981.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Hon. Charles J. Dusek Atomic Safety and Licensing Mayor, City of Wallis Board Panel P. O. Box 312 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wallis, Texas 77485 Washington, D. C. 20555 -
Hon. Leroy H. Grebe Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum County Judge, Austin County Route 3, Box 350A P. O. Box 99 Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Bellville, Texas 7741&--
Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-.
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Atomic Safety and Licensing Docketing and Service Section Appeal Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory of the Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Susan Plettman Richard Black David Preister Staff Counsel '
Texas Attorney General's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D. C. 20555
/
- - . . . , . . - - - - - . - - - - - . , - - _ _ , - ,--n-..,,--,- . . - . - - - ~ - , , - . . . - c --- . - ,n-..-n--- . . . - . . - - - - , - - , . . . - . . ~ . -
s' e
Bryan L. Baker Brenda McCorkle 1118 Montrose 6140 Darnell Houston, Texas 77019 Houston, Texas 77074 J. Morgan Bishop W. Matthew Perrenod 11418 Oak Spring 4070 Merrick Houston, Texas 77043 Houston, Texas 77025 stephen A. Doggett Wayne E. Rentfro .
P. O. Box 592 P. O. Box 1335 l Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 John F. Doherty William Schuessler 4327 Alconbury 5810 Darnell Houston, Texas 77021 Houston, Texas 77074 Ca,ro Hinderstein James M. Scott 609 Fannin, Suite 521 13935 Ivy Mount Houston, Texas 77002 Sugar Land, Texas 77478 D. Marrack 420 Mulberry Lane Bellaire, Texas 77401
- h. /M J. Grego elaAd
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ - . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . , _