ML19253C732
| ML19253C732 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308 |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1979 |
| From: | Rooney M, Szwajkowski R GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., MAYER, BROWN & PLATT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912120048 | |
| Download: ML19253C732 (12) | |
Text
'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD IN THE MATTER OF
)
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
)
)
Docket No. 70-1308 m
s
)
9 (GE Morris Operation Spent g
ggl2$ bp7 Fuel Storage Facility) 3
)
~
2 g@ la g-1 6-Y STATEMENT OF POSITION OF e
ya GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ON 9
THE CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE OF I
ILLINOIS This statement constitutes the position of General Electric Company
(" General Electric") concerning the contentions contained in the Petition For Leave to Intervene of the People of the State of Illinois
(" Illinois"), filed in the above-captioned matter on May 21, 1979.
RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT This demand is inappropriate because General Electric is not presently required to file an environmental impact statement.
Moreover, the necessary environmental information has already been provided by General Electric to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") in NEDO-20969B2, " Operating Experience Irradiated Fuel Storage, Morris Operation, January, 1537 060 7912120 0
GENERAL OBJECTION TO CONTENTIONS General Electric objects to each contention A through O inclusive,I/ on the grounds that each should be stricken for failure to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a) because each contention lacks specificity and fails to set forth an adequate basis.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO CONTENTIONS CONTENTION A STATES:
A.
The CSAR seriously underestimates the exposure of the public to radioactive effluents because of its failure to account for the following factors:
1.
population levels throughout the life of the facility 2.
the storage of mixed PuO -CO2 fuel rods 2
3.
the possible loss of fuel element and cladding integrity over the life of the facility A.l.
This contention need not be considered because the Consolidated Safety Analysis Report for Morris Operation, January 1979, NEDO-21326C, ("CSAR") is being revised to incor-porate population projections and related information for the period during which the license will be effective.
-*/
There are no contentions D and K.
Contentions N and O were presented by Illinois at the meeting of August 29, 1979, among Illinois, General Electric, and the Staff of the NRC.
Although they are not technically part of the Petition For Leave To Intervene, they are nevertheless addressed here.
1537 061 A.2.
This contention is irrelevant because Puo2-UO2 (plutonium-uranium oxide) fuel cannot be stored at the Morris facility under the existing license or the renewal application.
A.3.
This contention should be stricken because the CSAR adequately addresses the question of fuel element and cladding integrity.
See CSAR 55.4.4.1.
No support for the allegation that the CSAR inadequately addresses this point is provided.
CONTENTION B STATES:
B.
The CSAR's description and analysis of the possibility and consequences cf the following accidents is inadequate:
1.
loss of fuel basin cooling 2.
fuel basin liner rupture due to cask accident 3.
fuel basket drop / criticality Thus Applicant cannot assure that the public will be protected from undue exposure to radioactive material.
B.l.
This contention should be stricken because the CSAR adequately addresses the question of loss of basin cooling.
See CSAR S55.4.4.3, 8.2, 8.3, and Appendices A.9 and A.13.
No support for the allegation that the CSAR inadequately addresses this point is provided.
B.2.
This contention should be stricken because the CSAR adequately addresses the consequences of a cask drop accident.
See CSAR 58.3 and Appendix A.13.
No support for the allegation that the CSAR inadequately addresses this point is provided.
1537 062 B.3.
This contention should be stricken because the CSAR adequately addresses the consequences of a fuel drop accident.
See CSAR 558.7-8.7.2.1.
No support for the allegation that the CSAR inadequately addresses this point is provided.
CONTENTION C STATES:
The CSAR does not describe and analyze all possible and credible accidents and the consequences thereof including:
1.
sabotage related accidents 2.
an accident involving the interrelationship between Dresden Nuclear Reactors and the Morris facility 3.
the release of radioactive cesium from spent fuel elements during a loss-of-coolant trans-portation accident; and 4.
tornado related accidents Thus, the Applicant cannot assure that the public will be protected from undue exposure to radioactive material.
C.l.
This contention should be stricken because the Morris facility is in compliance with 10 C.F.R. S73.50.
The contention, to the extent that it is an attack upon the validity of existing regulations, is improper pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.758.
C.2 This contention should be stricken as irrelevant to the issues before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board with regard to the pending license renewal application.
No interrelationship between the Dresden and Morris facilities has 1537 063 been stated; their proximity is not an adequate basis to establish that this contention is relevant.
C.3.
This contention should be stricken as irrelevant to the proceeding because the question of transportation of spent fuel is not germane to the pending license renewal application.
To the extent that this contention is an attack on existing transportation regulations contained in 10 C.F.R.,
Part 71, or the recent amendment to 10 C.F.R.,
Part 73, (44 Fed. Reg. 24466 (June 15, 1979)), it should be stricken pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.758.
C.4.
This contention should be stricken because the CSAR adequately addresses the consequences of a tornado upon the Morris facility.
See CSAR 554.2-4.2.2.2.8 (especially table 4-3),
8.4-8.4.2, 8.11, and Appendix B.3.
No support for the allegation that the CSAR inadequately addresses this point is provided.
CONTENTION E STATES:
The CSAR's analysis of sub-surface water behavior and its monitoring program for potential surface and sub-surface water contamination is inadequate, and thus the ability of the Applicant to protect the public from undue exposure to radioactive material and to protect the public's water supply from contam-ination cannot be assured.
This contention should be stricken because the CSAR adequately addresses the consequences of any sub-surface or 1537 064
_s_
~
surface water behavior related problems.
See CSAR Appendix B.12, S7.7.1.
No support for the allegation that the CSAR inadequately addresses this point is provided.
Moreover, the monitoring program is in accordance with recommendations of the Fish & Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Radiological Health of the U. S. Department of Health and Welfare and meets the requirements of and is inspected by the Department of Public Health of the State of Illinois.
CONTENTION F STATES:
The Applicant has not presented emergency plans to handle the accidents indicated in Contention B and C as required by 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix E.
This contention is irrelevant to the pending license renewal application because 10 C.F.R.,
Part 50, is not applicable to the Morris facility.
Nevertheless, the contention is invalid because General Electric has an emergency plan in effect; see NEDE-21894-2 Radiological Emergency Plan for Morris Operation.
CONTENTION G STATES:
The CSAR seriously underestimates or does not state the health effects to occupational personnel and the public because it fails to account for the total whole body exposure to occu-pational personnel for the life of the Morris facility and for the genetic effects to the general population caused by such whole body exposures.
This contention should be stricken because the CSAR 1537 065 adequately addresses the question of occupational exposures.
See CSAR 57.5
/
The CSAR discussion la in accordance with the applicable regulations.
To the eYtent that this contention is an attack upon the validity of those regulations, it should be stricken pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.758.
CONTENTION H STATES:
The Applicant has failed to analyze the relevant safety and health issues from the perspective of long term storage of spent fuel at the Morris facility.
Without such an examination, the Applicant cannot assure that the extended operation of the Morris facility will not endanger the health and safety of the public, now or in the future.
Further, the application fails to take into account relevant safety and health issues related to site expansion and air or dry storage.
This contention should be stricken as inappropriate for consideration because in view of the decision by the NRC to address the questions of long-term er permanent storage and disposal of nuclear waste in a generic proceeding, individual licensing boards should not and need not address this contention.
See Minnesota v. NRC, Nos. 78-1269, 78-2032 (D.C. Cir., May 23, 1979);
Virginia Electric and Power Co.,
(North Anna Power Station, Units 1 & 2 ) ( August 17, 1979).
Moreover, long-term storage is not contemplated by the pending license application, nor is site expansion or air or dry storage of spent fuel.
These
- /
Actual experience concerning occupational exposures is reported in NEDO-20969B2, Operating Experience-Irradiated Fuel Storage-Morris Operation (January, 1979), 54 (see especially Figure 4-1 and Tables 4-1 and 4-2).
1537 066 allegations should, accordingly, be stricken as irrelevant.
CONTENTION I STATES:
The Applicant has failed to identify the governmental entity that will be ultimately responsible for the perpetual care of the Morris facility once it is decommissioned or to identify the governmental entity that will be responsible for such decommissioning in the event the Applicant should abandon the site prior to that time.
The identification of a specified government entity both technically and financially capable of performing the tasks described above is necessary in order to ensure that the operation of the Morris facility will not en-danger the health and safety of the public.
This contention is irrelevant to the pending license renewal application because under the existing regulations there is no requirement that General Electric identify any governmental or other entity which would be responsible for the perpetual care of the Morris facility after decommissioning.
To the extent that this contention is an attack upon the validity of existing regulations it should be stricken pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S2.758.
Moreover, there is no reason to believe that perpetual care of the decommissioned Morris facility will be required.
See CSAR, Appendix A.7, SA.7.4.2.
General Electric has under-taken to bear responsibility for the decommissioning of the Morris facility.
See letter of R.H.
Beaton to NRC, dated May 14, 1979.
CONTENTICN J STATES:
The application does not include, as required by 10 j/ Q6[ C.F.R., Parts 50.33 (f), 70.22 and 10 C.F.R., Part 50, Appendix F, a discussion of the Applicant's financial ability to carry out removal and disposal of high level and other significant radioactive wastes at the time of decommissioning and the Applicant's financial ability to shut down the facility perma-nently and perpetually maintain it in a safe condition. This discussion must include sufficient information on possible available decommissioning methods and their feasibility in order that a judgment on the Applicant's qualifications may be made. The portion of this contention that refers to 10 C.F.R. 550.33(f) and 10 C.F.R., Part 50, Appendix F, should be stricken as irrelevant because 10 C.F.R., Part 50, is inapplicable to the Morris facility. The portion of this contention that refers to 10 C.F.R. 570.32 should be stricken because that section does not require disclosure by General Electric of the type of financial information referred to in the contention. Never-theless, the CSAR contains an adequate decommissioning plan for the Morris facility. See CSAR, Appendix A.7. It does not contain a discussion of removal and disposal of high level waste because no such waste, as defined in 10 C.F.R., Part 50, Appendix F, is present at the Morris facility. CONTENTION L STATES: The application is deficient in that it does not include, as required by 10 C.F.R., Part 50, Appendix F. No. 3, a viable mechanism for the transfer to the federal government of any portion of the facility that cannot be fully decommissioned. This contention should be stricken as irrelevant to the pending licensing proceeding because 10 C.F.R., Part 50, is not 1537 068 applicable to the Morris facility. CONTENTION M STATES: The Applicant has not presented any evidence that it has acquired sufficient financial protection to cover any and all public liability claims that may arise from any nuclear accident associated with the Morris facility, including transportation accidents. This contention should be stricken as irrelevant to the pending license renewal application, because there is no regulatory requirement that General Electric provide evidence that it has sufficient financial protection to cover any and all public liability claims that may arise concerning the Morris facility. In any event, General Electric has in force insurance to cover its activities at the Morris facility. CONTENTION N STATES: The application is deficient due to its failure to present an emergency plan for unloading the pool. This contention should be stricken as irrelevant because under applicable regulations there is no requirement that General Electric present an emergency plan for unloading the pool at the Morris facility. To the extent that this contention attacks the validity of existing regulations for failing to require an applicant provide such a plan, it should be stricken pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.758. ~ 1537 069 .. ~ CONTENTION O STATES: The application is deficient due to its failure to consider new requirements proposed under the draft rules of 10 C.F.R., Part 72. This contention should be stricken as irrelevant because the draft rule proposed as 10 C.F.R., Part 72, is not in effect and, accordingly, has no bearing upon the pending license renewal application. Since each and every contention of petitioner, the People of the State of Illinois, is invalid, General Electric submits that each should be stricken from the pending license renewal proceeding and requests that this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board do so. Respectfully submitted, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY By: Ronald W. Szwajkowski bfgf/ kJ(y[0 'M^
- Ml Matthew A.
Rooney Its Attorneys DATED: November 20, 1979 1537 070 OF COUNSEL: MAYER, BROWN & PLATT 231 South LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312) 782-0600 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ) In the Matter of ) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ) ) Docket No. 70-1308 Consideration of Renewal of ) Materials License No. SNW-1265 ) Issued to GE Morris Operation ) Fuel Storage Installation ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that he served a copy of the STATEMENT OF POSITION OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ON THE CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS in the above-captioned pro-ceeding on the following persons by causing the said copies to be deposited in the United
- Chicago, State mail at 231 South LaSalle Street, Illinois, in plainly addressed and sealed en-velopes with proper first class postage attached before 5:00 p.m. on November 20, 1979:
Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq., Chairman Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board United States Nuclear Regula-tory Commission 3320 Estelle Terrace Wheaton, Maryland 20906 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Dr. Linda W. Little Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 sion Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Forrest J. Remick Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary 305 East Hamilton Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-State College, Pennsylvania 16801 sion Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Washington, D.C. 20555 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bridget L. Rorem, Ralph Rorem,Jr. Washington, D.C. 2055o Keith Storey, Everett Quigley Acoleseed Susan N. Sekuler, Esq. Braidwood, Illinois 60408 ~ George William Wolff, Esq. Office of the Attorney General 188 West Randolph Street [ j g ]ymfj Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 g Matthew A. Rooney / 1537 071}}