ML19254D743

Response in Opposition to Jf Doherty 790914 Contentions 43 & 44.New Contentions Are Untimely & Fail to Establish Adequate Basis Re Stress Corrosion Cracking Allegations.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19254D743
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	09/28/1979
From:	Copeland J, Newman J BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 7910300044
Download: ML19254D743 (7)

Text

'

'

g ) :(9

'

UC DOCUMEMT ROOM lh,s$7# & P

.- NOS

, 1 u . 's

'

'

% ?h p t-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-

h /

4 ,

y 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 APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO JOHN DOHERTY'S UNTIMELY CCNTENTIONS 43 AND 44 Houston Lighting & Power Company (Applicant) hereby submits the following response to Contentions 443 and

_

$44 filed by John F. Doherty (Intervenor) on September 14, 1979, four months and three days after the last period for submitting additional contentions lapsed.

. h I. t

,

In Contention 43 Intervenor contends that Applicant's stainless steel ccmponents, including safety system piping and nuclear steam supply system, will be coated or cleaned with compounds that contribute to intergranular stress corrosion cracking. Intervenor claims these ccmpounds will contain chlorides, flourides, lead, zinc, copper, sulfur, or mercu?y. Intervenor is mistaken on the facts. Applicant has committed to comply with Regulatory Guide 1.37 (PSAR, Appendi:t C. p. C1. 37-1) with respect to the cleaning of safety-related systems for which 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B applies.

Regulatory Guide 1.37, section C.4. states:

,od, 303

,

T910300oy()G

- . .. - - - .

_ -

_ .. . . . -. . .. - . .-

Chemical compounds that could contribute to intergranular cracking or stress-corrosion cracking should not be used with austenictic stainless steel and nickel-base alloys. Examples of such chemical compounds are those containing chlorides, flourides, lead, zinc, copper, sulfur, or mercury where such elements are leachable or where they could be released by breakdown of the i compounds under expected environmental conditions (e. g. by radiation).

Notwithstanding Intervenor's implications to the contrary, Applicant has also committed to comply with Regulatory Guide 1.54 (PSAR, Appendix C. p. C1.54-1). Section C.4. of that guide states:

Coatings and cleaning materials used with stainless steel should not be ccmpounded from or treated with chemical compounds containing elements that could contribute to corrosion, intergranular cracking, or stess-corrosion crack'ing. Examples of such chemical compounds are those containing chlorides, flourides, lead, zinc, copper, sulfur, or mercury where sucn elements are leachable or where they could be released by breakdcwn under expected environmental conditions (e.g. radiation) .

, a Intervenor does not assert that Applichnt cannot

'

or will not satisfy these ccmmitments. Indeed, his contention is rather obviously drafted without knowledge of these commitments. Hence, there is no basis for Intervenor's allegations and this contention should be dismissed.

II.

In Contention 44 Intervenor contends the ACNGS design does not consider pipebreak accidents initiated by water hammer and recommends more adequate inservice inspection

'

m,n i<

b b

< ,

.. .- -. . - . .-- -

of certain system piping. To suppert this contention, Intervenor calls attention to recirculation pipe cracks at Duane Arnold in 1978 and an August 16, 1979, ACRS Report.

In both references the pipe cracks discussed resulted from intergranular stress corrosion cracking of stainless steel or nickel-based alloys. The important distinction for ACNGS, then, is that the feedwater and steam supply piping, the residual heat removal piping, the ECCS piping, the containment spray system piping and service water piping are made of carbon steel, not stainless steel or nickel-based.

Hence, the systems named by Intervenor are not susceptible to intergranular stess corrosion cracking,. Intervenor offers nothing to suggest that these systems would be susceptible and, thus, the contributing effect of The contention should be dismissed for lacks of basis. ,

'

i

'

III. \

,

Contentions 43 and 44 are also untimely filed without an adequate showing of good cause as required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2. 714 ( a) . In both instances , Intervenor attempts to justify his late filing solely by the fact that he was

" unaware" of certain factors allegedly contributing to the problem of stress corrosion cracking (cleaning and coating 1,/ Intervenor alleges that the ACRS Report " linked" inter-granular pipe cracking and water hammer. The Report does not disucss any cause and effect relationship between the two; it only mentions the obvious point that water hammer, like earthquakes or any other force,, may cause pipe cracks to propagate into pipe breaks.

,.38 ;, 0 . 4

. .

-. . - ._- _

compounds in Contention 43; water hammer in Contention 44) .

The alleged sources cf Intervenor's new information is an As 33 Report to the Commission dated August 16, 1979. The difficulty with Intervenor's "new information" is that it neither raises a new issue nor does it raise any issue at all reflecting on the sufficiency of the materials or design of ACNGS. The referenced ACRC Report does generally discuss the long standing problems of stess corrosion cracking. As as indication of the age of the concerns raised, however, the Regulatory Guides, quoted above, which preclude the alleged problem .a Contention 43 were published in 1973.

Similarly, the water hammer phencmenon of Co'ntention 44 has been under Commission scrutiny for several years;2/ at no time during this period has water hammer been identified as

,a contributor to intergranular or stress corros' ton pipe

- (

cracking and nothing in the ACRS letter intimates otherwise.3/

An intervenor as a heavy burden in justifying an untimely filing when he has failed to established " good cause". Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., (West Valley Reprocessing Plant) , CLI-74-4, 1 NRC 273 (1975). Intervenor has certainly not demonstrated good cause with his misplaced reliance on a single ACRS Report; nor is his cryptic discussion of the 2,/ See " Introduction", Water Hammer b3 Nuclear Power Plants ,

NUREG-0582 (Ju'y, 1979).

3/ See note 1, supra.

a 8  :.,, 0,. ,0

_ _- .. - _ _ __ -

.

other f actors set forth in S2.714 (a) sufficient. Accordingly, the Board should dismiss both contentions.

Respectfully submitted,

/

OF COUNSEL: ll , MT14f-J.e,Gregor Coff!1and/

BAKER & BOTTS C./ Thomas iMle , Jr .

3000 One Shell Plaza Charles G. Thrash Houston, fexas 77002 1G00 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEhEAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL J. R. Ne' alan 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Harold F. Reis Washington, D.C. 20036 Robert J. Culp 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Applicant HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY

' -

.

,

\

,

8 :107

..-- - .- . . - _ _ - - - - - - - - - .

- . - - - - . - _.

.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY 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 Response to John Doherty's Untimely Contentions 43 and 44 in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery this 2 P;% day of %%-e.M '

ber - ,

1979.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Richard Lowerre, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel for the State of Texas

<U.S,. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission 'P . O. B'q'x 12548 Washington, D. C. 20555 Capitol 3tation

- Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A Hon. Charles J. Dusek Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Mayor, City of Wallis P. O. Box 312 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Wallis, Texas 77485 Atumic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Leroy H. Grebe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com:aission County Judge, Austin County Washington, D. C. 20555 P.O. Box 99 Bellville, Texas 77418 Chase R. Stephens Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretz.ry of the Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20535 R. Gordon Gooch, Esq. Atcmic Safety and Licensing Baker & Botts Board Panel

'

1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20006 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 mon ,-

o 3 18

.- . . - - _. - .

- . - . - . . . - . - . ..

.

. .. .

Steve Schinki, Esq.

Staff Counsel

.U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 John F. Doherty 4438 1/2 Leeland Houston, Texas 77023 Madeline Bass Framson 4822 Waynesboro Drive Houston, Texas 77035 Robert S. Framson 4822 Waynesboro Drive Houston, Texas 77035 Carro Hinderstein 8739 Link Terrace Houston, Texas 77025 .

D. Marrack 420 Mulberry Lane Bellaire, Texas 77401 Brenda McCorkle .,

4 -

6140 Darnell \

Houston, Texas 7'/074

,

F. H. Potthoff, III 7200 Shady Villa, 411C Houston, Texas 77055 Wayne E. Rentfro P. O. Box 1335

• Rosenberg, Texas 77471 James M. Scott, Jr.

8302 Albacore Houston Texas 77074

&& //

Gregory /C peland

"8 309

-- - - - - . . . . . .

-