ML003737339
| ML003737339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 07/27/2000 |
| From: | O'Neill J Carolina Power & Light Co, ShawPittman, LLP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| +adjud/rulemjr200506, 50-400-LA, ASLBP 99-762-02-LA, RAS 1973 | |
| Download: ML003737339 (7) | |
Text
41yu, 27,, 2O0,00 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
) )
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT
)
Docket No. 50-400-LA COMPANY
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant)
)
ASLBP No. 99-762-02-LA APPLICANT'S REPLY TO PARTIES' COMMENTS ON RELEVANCE OF JUNE ACRS LETTER TO PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENTIONS I.
INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the Licensing Board's July 13, 2000 Memorandum and Order, Applicant Carolina Power & Light Company ("CP&L" or "Applicant") files its reply to the parties' comments on the relevance, if any, of the June 20, 2000 letter from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ("ACRS") to NRC Chairman Richard Meserve ("June ACRS Letter") to the four pending environmental contentions filed by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County ("BCOC") on January 31, 2000. All parties filed comments pursuant to the Board's Order July 20, 2000.'
All of the parties' comments demonstrate that the June ACRS Letter is not relevant to the admissibility of BCOC's four late-filed environmental contentions.
' See "NRC Staff Comments on Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Letter of June 20, 2000" (July 20, 2000) ("Staff's Comments"); "Orange County's Comments on Relevance of June 20, 2000, ACRS Letter with Respect to Pending Environmental Contentions" (July 20, 2000) ("BCOC's Comments");
"Applicant's Comments on Relevance of June ACRS Letter to Pending Environmental Contentions" (July 20, 2000) ("Applicant's Comments").
S=
5~~~E
/I yooz
Nothing in the June ACRS Letter cures the flaws that render the four pending environmental contentions inadmissible under NRC regulations and case law.
II.
DISCUSSION A.
BCOC's Comments Demonstrate that the June ACRS Letter is Not Relevant to the Pending Contentions BCOC summed up the parties' mutual position on the relevance of the June ACRS Letter to the four pending environmental contentions in its statement that:
Like the April 13 ACRS letter, the June 20 letter sheds no light on whether a degraded-core reactor accident with containment failure or bypass will, as the County claims, almost certainly cause adjacent pools to lose water by evaporation.
BCOC's Comments at 4 n. 1.2 BCOC concedes that "the June 20 ACRS Letter does not make any attempt to address the causal relationship between reactor accidents and spent fuel pool accidents." Id.
BCOC makes a perfunctory attempt to find "inferences" from the June ACRS Letter to support its cause. While the June ACRS Letter addresses only two issues (Ruthenium/fuel fines in the source term and screening criteria for backfit of safety equipment, see Applicant's Comments at 3), BCOC attempts to "infer" a multitude of other "concerns," including "uncertainty analyses," "human error," and "earthquake,"
3 that are not expressed in the letter. BCOC's Comments at 3. Such inferences can hardly 2 While the NRC Staff's "Draft Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants" ("Draft Technical Study") is not the issue before the Board, BCOC reiterated its earlier position that "the Draft Technical Study's relevance to the pending contentions was limited."
BCOC's Comments at 2.
3 In any event, the additional issues "infer[red]" by BCOC (._, earthquake) are outside of the scope of the four contentions that were filed by BCOC, and thus are irrelevant to admissibility of the pending environmental contentions.
be fairly derived from the silence in the June ACRS Letter on these other concerns.4 BCOC is trying to make the June ACRS Letter into more than it is, in a last ditch attempt to buttress inadmissible contentions with speculation. In any event, a mere inference is an insufficient basis for an admissible contention. See Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C.
(Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-98-7, 47 NRC at 142, 180 (1998)
(mere speculation does not provide an adequate basis for a contention). The Board should ignore BCOC's attempt to "infer" additional "concerns" into the June ACRS Letter.
Similarly fruitless are BCOC's attempts to use a "broad-brush" approach to infer that the June ACRS Letter somehow relates to its four pending environmental contentions. BCOC asserts that the June ACRS Letter "demonstrates that [the ACRS]
considers the Draft Technical Study to be relevant to spent fuel pool accident risks at operating reactors...." BCOC's Comments at 3 (emphasis added). The question on which the Board has invited comment is whether the June ACRS Letter has any relevance to the four pending environmental contentions as proposed by BCOC. The Board has not asked about the Draft Technical Study's relevance to operating reactors in general.
BCOC's comments demonstrate that the June ACRS Letter has no relevance to the fundamental question before the Board: the admissibility of the four environmental contentions proposed by BCOC. BCOC's attempt to draw inferences to support its position is pure speculation and unavailing.
"4 Indeed, the interpretation of the June ACRS Letter proffered by BCOC violates a fundamental canon of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" (the expression of one is the exclusion of others). See, S.&., Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction, Vol. 2A, § 47:23 (2000 Rev.).
B.
NRC Staff's Comments Further Demonstrate that the June ACRS Letter is Not Relevant to the Pending Contentions Applicant concurs with the NRC Staffs conclusion that "[t]he ACRS Letter does not provide any basis for the accident scenario that BCOC postulates." Staff s Comments at 2. As the Staff pointed out, "[t]he ACRS Letter presumes that a drain down event has already occurred, and makes no statement whatsoever with regard to the mechanism by which such a drain down might occur." Id. at 2 n.2 (emphasis added).
One of the two issues mentioned in the June ACRS Letter is the issue of Ruthenium/fuel fines in the source term after a spent fuel pool accident is assumed to have occurred. However, as the NRC Staff correctly notes "[t]he nature of the source term... is simply not relevant to the issue before the Board, namely, whether BCOC has met its burden to demonstrate that there is a credible basis for its postulated accident scenario." Id. at 2. "BCOC provided no facts or expert opinion to support its assertion that a loss of water in the Harris [spent fuel pools] is an 'almost certain' result of a degraded core accident." Id. at 2 n.2. Nothing in the June ACRS Letter cures this defect.
As the Staff pointed out in its comments, "[w]ithout some credible basis for a contention it cannot be admitted for hearing." Id.
Ultimately, Applicant concurs with the NRC Staff's position that none of BCOC's four pending environmental contentions is admissible and that nothing in the June ACRS Letter affects that conclusion. Applicant fully endorses the Staff s conclusion that:
BCOC has not submitted an admissible contention. The contentions proffered do not meet the standards for admission in an NRC proceeding. Nothing contained in the ACRS Letter alters that conclusion.
Id. at 2 (citation omitted).
III.
CONCLUSION The issue before the Board is whether BCOC has submitted an admissible contention pursuant to NRC regulations and case law. None of BCOC's four pending environmental contentions meets the Commission's requirements for an admissible contention. The parties' comments demonstrate that the June ACRS Letter sheds no light on the accident scenario that forms the basis of BCOC's contentions, and that nothing in the June ACRS Letter can cure the defects that render inadmissible each of the four pending environmental contentions.
R spect Ily si~bm 'ed, Of Counsel:
John t
'Neill, Jr.
Steven Carr Willa1 m
R ollaway Legal Department SHAW PI MAN CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT 2
"treet, N.W.
COMPANY Washington, D.C. 20037 411 Fayetteville Street Mall (202) 663-8000 Post Office Box 1551 - CPB 13A2 Counsel For CAROLINA POWER Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1551
& LIGHT COMPANY (919) 546-4161 Dated: July 27, 2000 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant)
) )
)
)
)
Docket No. 50-400-LA ASLBP No. 99-762-02-LA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "Applicant's Reply to Parties' Comments on Relevance of June ACRS Letter to Pending Environmental Contentions" were served on the persons listed below by U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, and by electronic mail transmission, this 27th day of July, 2000.
G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Esq., Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 e-mail: gpb(qjnrc.gov Dr. Peter S. Lam Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 e-mail: psldnrc.gov Frederick J. Shon Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 e-mail: t. s(anrc.gov Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff e-mail: hearingdocket(&nrc.gov (Original and two copies)
Susan L. Uttal, Esq.
Robert M. Weisman, Esq.
Brooke D. Poole, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop 0-15 B18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 e-mail: harris@nrc.gov Diane Curran, Esq.
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg &
Eisenberg, L.L.P.
1726 M Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 e-mail: dcurranpdharmoncurran.com
- by mail only
- Adjudicatory File Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 James M. Cutchin, V, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 e-mail: jmc3@nrc.gov