ML20058G282

Memorandum & Order Denying Fairfield United Action 820409 Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing & B Bursey 820414 Motion for Admission of New Contentions.Different Result Would Not Be Reached by Considering Petition Matl

ML20058G282
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	08/02/1982
From:	Grossman H, Hooper F, Linenberger G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	BURSEY, B., FAIRFIELD UNITED ACTION
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8208030252
Download: ML20058G282 (6)

Text

.

00txETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USIIRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 82 EO -2 P2 @

Before Administrative Judges: --

Herbert Grossman, Chairman , ~ u fi'",^'

~ " *, c"-

Dr. Frank F. Hooper Gustave A. Linenberger In the Matter of )

)

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND ) Docket No. 50-395 OL GAS COMPANY, ET AL.

(Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, )

Unit 1) ) August 2, 1982 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motions to Reopen the Record) .

Memorandum On April 9, 1982, Fairfield United Action (FUA) filed its second petition to intervene and request for hearings. Its first petition had been dismissed almost a year before, on June 3,1981, pursuant to ALAB-642, 13 NRC 881 (1981), for failure to meet the 5-factor balancing test of 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a) for untimely petitions. This new petition l

l also constitutes a motion to reopen the record which had been closed l

almost three months earlier on January 20, 1982. The subject of the petition involves rapid tube wear caused by flow induced vibrations in the preheater region of the Westinghouse Model D3 steam generators employed at Summer. Petitioner contends that the operating license should not issue because the likelihood of tube weakening, leakage, or rupture, in combination with other events, could result in the release of I

l 8208030252 820802 PDR ADOCK 05000395 0 PDR D

significant amounts of radiation to the atmosphere and endanger the health and safety of the public. In addition, because the plant is scheduled to operate at less than 50 percent power while the steam generator tubes are monitored and before the problems have been resolved, petitioner contends that the favorable cost-benefit analysis struck at the construction permit stage be redone and resolved against plant operation.

With regard to the timeliness of its petition, FUA points out that it had only recently (between late January 1982, after the close of the evidentiary record, and April 5,1982) been informed of serious problems with the Model D steam generators and the plans of Applicants to operate at considerably less than full power for an extended period.

Similarly, on April 14, 1982, Intervenor Bursey moved for the admission of new contentions involving the steam generator tube problems.

In abbreviated form, he raised the same two contentions relating to nealth and safety, and the cost-benefit balance. In addition, he contended that the plans to operate the plant at half power would adversely affect Applicants' financial structure.

Applicants and Staff oppose the admission of these new contentions i on the grounds that petitioner and intervenor have not met the five-factor balancing test of 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a) and have not met the standards for reopening a closed record. Applicants and Staff supported their positions by affidavits describing the program for the operation of the plant pending a permanent design modification to the steam generators, which included a testing program at power levels up to 50 l

i

percent of full power followed by shutdown and eddy current inspection of the tubes.

We deny the motions to raise the new contentions.

In our Memorandum and Order of April 28, 1982, we denied Intervenor Bursey's contention regarding allegeo deficiencies in operating and emergency procedures. We pointed out that before satisfying the five-factor test of 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1), Intervenor must satisfy even more stringent standards in order to reopen a record. The motion must be timely; it must be addressed to a significant safety or environmental issue; it must establish that a different result would be reached by considering the material submitted in suoport of the motion; and there must be an unresolved issue of fact that would have an effect upon the outcome ~of the licensing proceeding. Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320, 338 (1978); Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-573, 10 NRC 775, 804 (1979); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 523 (1973); Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), ALAB-227, 8 AEC 416, 418 (1974).

We deny the =;tions solely on the ground that a different result would not be reached by considering tne material submitted in support of the motions. With regard to the issues concerning the cost-benefit analysis, we see little likelihood that plant operation at 50-percent power for a limited period would adversely affect the favorable balance struck at the construction permit stage. With regard to financial

9 qualifications, the Commission has eliminated that issue from consideration in both construction permit and operating license proceedings. 47 Fed. Reg. 13750 (March 31, 1982). As to the health and safety issue, we base our decision not to reopen the record on a comparison of the f actual matters covered in the Staff's and Applicants' affidavits with the matters alleged by Intervenor Bursey and Petitioner FUA in the bodies of their motions. It appears to us, as a prima f acie matter,$/ that Staff and Applicants have devised a comprehensive plan for the testing, monitoring and correction of the steam generator problems that poses no danger to the public health and safety because of the plans to operate the f acility at less than half power until the problems are resolved. The only concern that we consider realistic from reviewing the contents of the filings relates to the eventual full-power operation of the f acility af ter corrective measures have been taken.

Those concerns should not preclude operation of the f acility at less than full power at this juncture and, since the corrective measures have not yet been fully determined, the situation is not ripe for hearing. It would appear that the only remedy possible from the matters alleged would be a decision to proceed with low power operation, testing, monitoring, and a comprehensive technical review of the proposed permanent improvements. Since Staff and Applicants are already committed to this

$/ We do not attempt to decide the issues on the merits at this juncture.

procedure, it is not necessary for the Board to reopen the proceeding merely to sanction it.

Petitioner FUA has suggested also that we consider the steam generator problems under the sua sponte authority of this Board.

Presumably, we could recommend the issuance of the operating license subject to low power operation limitations and schedule a later hearing, af ter the corrective measures have been proposed (and possibly implemented), to consider dangers to the public health and safety from full power operation. While that procedure has considerable merit, our discretion to accept matters on sua sponte authority has been increasingly subject to Commission review. In a somewhat analogous situation involving corroded steam generator tubes, the Commission denied a request by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board to consider a review of the technical issue under its sua sponte authority.

Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.

1), Docket No. 50-289 (Restart), CLI-82-12, July 16, 1982. We accept that determination as a direction not to consider the steam generator issue in this proceeding either.

In view of Intervenor's and Petitioner's not having satisfied the l

standards for reopening the proceeding, we need not consider whether they have satisfied the five-f actor test for filing late contentions.

ORDER For all of the foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of I

! the entire record in this matter, it is this 2nd day of August,1982 l ORDERED

That the petition to intervene and request for hearings filed by FUA on April 9, 1982, and the motion for admission of new contentions filed Intervenor Bursey on April 14, 1982, are denied.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

/ o'

!b I /,<ue.,6scu i r^ c,

'Gus'tave A. Linenberger ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE A k \ (: . .

Dr. Frank F. Hooper ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE n , h&< ^-~~

Herbert Grossman, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l

- . . - . -