ML19261D787
| ML19261D787 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1979 |
| From: | Larry Jones, Mcgurren H, Trowbridge G GILLESPIE & JONES, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906260394 | |
| Download: ML19261D787 (20) | |
Text
.-.
[
E-dQ N
C EC PUDLIC DOCUME.NT ROOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
?C e6i O./
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-f, v-i se
/
N"p/ %,,.,
Before the Atomic Saf ety and Licensina Board In the Matter of
)
)
Louisiana Power & Light Company
)
Docket 50-382
)
(Waterford Steam Electric Station, )
Unit 3)
)
JOINT POSITIONS OF APPLICANT, JOINT PETITIONERS,
AND NRC STAFF ON CONTENTIONS OF SAVE OUR WETLANDS, INC. AND OYSTERSHELL ALLIANCE, INC.
On Thursday, April 26, 1979 a Special Prehearing Conference was conducted in New Orleans, Louisiana by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
At the conclusion of this Conference, Applicant, Joint Petitioners Save Our Wetlands, Inc. and Oystershell Alliance, Inc., and the NRC Staff were directed by the Board to meet to reach agreement, where possible, on the allowability of Joint Detitioners' conten-tions.
Applicant, Joint Petitioners, and Staff were directed to submit ~a joint statement to the Licensing Board indicating those contentions on which agreement was reached, as well as those contentions on which agreement could not be reached and on which the Licensing Board would have to rule. See tr. at 109-111.
This submission is responsive to the directions of the Board.
23Il 203 7906260391
Contention 1 1.
Applicant has failed to demonstrate the necessity in the public interest for operation of the Waterford 3 Facility, based upon the following considerations:
a.
Applicant's assignment of higher than reasonable figures for projected demand for electric power which ignore current diminution of demand for electricity on the order of 50% of past (i.e. 1960's & early 1970's) demands for electric power.
b.
Applicant's assignment of industrial demand factors for electricity which neglect to give appropriate discounts for self-generated industrial power, which industries and other large consumers of power are resorting to in the face of high and increasing electrical costs.
c.
Applicant's assignment of greater than reasonable factors for reserve electrical production capacity requirements.
The three parties are agreeable to allowing this conten-tion in the form stated above.
The contention has been modified from the original contention by deleting part c, which referred to alternative energy sources, and designating the original part d as part c in the redrafted contention. 2311 204
Contention 2 2.
Applicant has failed to demonstrate the necessity in the public interest for operation of the Waterford 3 Facility based upon its understatement of costs of generating power at the f acility which understatement of costs results from improper consideration of the following f actors:
a.
Applicant has overstated the production capacity factor (i.e. generating capability of the facility) because of design inefficiencies and operating basis inefficiencies which are associated with the operation of pressurized water reactor (PWR) steam generaters as was recently noted in the Division of Operating Reactors recent March 2, 1979 communication to applicant enclosing NUREG-0523.
b.
Applicant has understated the costs of obtaining uranium fuels which will be used to operate the facility based upon its disregard for the escalation of the costs of such fuel, which can be reasonably expected to rise in cost to at least three times present cost.
c.
Applicant has understated the costs of decommissioning the facility based upon its 2311 205
its reliance on* industry generated data which fail to properly cost account for properly safe-guarding against radiation release:3.
d.
Applicant has underestimated the costs associated with spent fuel storage and/or disposal for the life of the Waterford facility.
The three parties are agreeable to allowing this conten-tion in the form stated above.
The contention has oeen modified from the original contention in several ways:
(1)
Part a has been changed to restrict the inefficiencies to which the contention refers to those considered in the March 2, 1979 communciation and in NUREG-0523; (2) Part c has been modified by deleting the word waste which had modified releases, and by deleting the reference to hypothesized costs of decommis-sioning; (3) Part d has been redrafted to incorporate the substantive concerns of Parts d through 3 Contentions 3, 4 and 5 These contentions all requested the Board to prohibit completion of the Waterford facility.
The Board ruled from the bench at the Special Prehearing Conference that such Typograpnical errors in Joint Petitioners' April 11, 1979 submission have been corrected, and such corrections are indicated by an asterisk.
_4 2311 206
contentions were not within the cognizance of this Licensing Board, and that the contentions were dismissed.
See tr. at 47-48.
Contention 6 6.
Applicant has failed to comply with 10 CFR 50.33 and Appendix C requirements for the following reasons:
a.
Applicant has indicated in Exhibit 4 of its Application that it does not presently possess the funds from earnings, borrowings or stock issues necessary to successfully complete the facility.
b.
Applicant has indicated in Exhibit 4 of its Application that it cannot now obtain the funds by use of earnings, borrowings, or stock issues necessary to successfully operate the facility as required by 10 CFR 50.33.
c.
Applicant has not set forth in substantial particularity a reasonable assurance of obtain-ing necessary funds from earnings, borrowings, or stock issues as required by 10 CFR 50.33.
d.
Applicant has indicated an intention to rely upon construction work in progress awards (CWIP) in, order to successfully complete, 2311 207
operate and decommission the facility.
Precedentially,* such awards have not been granted by the Louisiana Public Service Commission; and applicant lacks any assurance whatever of obtaining such awards presently.
The three parties agreed to the following stipulation regarding this contention:
Applicant, Joint Petitioners and the NRC Staff stipulate that Contention 6 is withdrawn but that Joint Petitioners shall have the right to present for consideration by the ASLB new contentions challenging Applicant's financial qualifications to operate Waterford Unit 3 within 30 days after the issuance of the NRC Staff SER or, in the event the SER does not cover the Staf f's position on Applicant's financial qualifications to operate the plant, within 30 days of the issuance of the first SER supplement which does address such financial qualifications.
Joint Petitioners reserve their right to adequate di.3covery following the determination by the ASLB as to the allowability of their contentions.
Applicant will provide to Joint Petitioners a copy of all data furnished to NRC pertaining to Applicant's financial qualifications.
2311 208
_6-
Contention 7 7.
Applicant has failed to appropriately consider in the Environmental Report, Section 5.2, et seq. the long term effects of low level radiation discharges, asserted to be in compliance with 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I, resulting from operation of the facility, storage of radioactive wastes and spent fuel trans-portation activities upon the following:
a.
Aquatic life, plant, animal and bird life, native flora and native fauna which would be adversely impacted by such emissions.
b.
Human beings who would be adversely impacted by increased cancer rates and allied diseases such as heart disease and pulmonary disorders as a result of such emissions.
c.
Plant, animal and human food chains which would be significantly altered, damaged or adversely impacted by such emissions.
d.
Genetic damage which would be caused by such emissions.
e.
Genetic damage which would be caused by Waterford 3 emissions in combination with all other radiation sources within the Baton Rouge-New Orleans industrial axis.
~7-2311 209
The three parties agreed to the following stipulation regarding this contention:
Applicant, Joint Petitioners and the NRC Staff stipulate that Contention 7 is withdrawn but that Joint Petitioners shall have the right to present for consideration by the ASLB new contentions concerning the long-term safety, health and environmental effects of low-level radiation discharges within 30 days after the issuance by the NRC Staff of the Draf t Environmental Statement (opera?ing license stage) for Waterford Unit 3.
Joint Petitioners reserve their right to adequate discovery following the determina-tion by the ASLB as to the allowability of their contentions.
Applicant will provide to Joint Petitioners a copy of all data, if any, furnished to NRC pertaining to such ef fects.
Contentions 8, 9,
10, 11, 12 and 13 8.
Applicant has failed to properly evaluate the health and environmental effects from existing industrial, petrochemical, manufacturing and back-ground sources of pollution operating in combination with low-level radiation introduced into the environ-ment by operation of the Waterford 3 facility.
- 9. Applicant has f ailed to properly evaluate synergistic effects of low-level radiation in 2311 210
combination with known and suspected carcinogens such as halogenated hydrocarbons, other petrochemicals, body hormones, tobacco smoke and other similar substances in the environment, with regard to the following:
a.
Human populations which would be rendered more susceptiable to cancer, heart disease, cardio-vascular and pulmonary diseases.
b.
Animal and plant populations which will be adversely impacted because of environmental stresses induced by these combinations of factors.
10.
Applicant has failed to properly evaluate radiation emissions which will be created by spent fuel storage due to the underestimation of amounts of spent fuel which will be held in storage during the useful life of the facility.
11.
Applicant has failed to properly evaluate radiation emissions which will be created by spent fuel storage by underestimating the amounts of spent fuel which will be processed, handled and stored based upon underestimation of the quantity of such products which will be stored on site at the facili-ty.
2311 211 12.
Applicant has failed to properly evaluate risks to humans caused by transportation of spent fuel and radioactive nuclear wastes into and/or through the Greater Metropolitan New Orleans Area as a result of the following:
a.
Applicant's lack of adquate details regarding proposals for transportation of such materials, b.
Applicant's failure to accurately evalute radiation releases resulting from such activity.
13.
Applicant has failed to appropriately evaluate the health, safety and environmental risks which result from storage at* the Waterford 3 site for an extended and as yet undetermined length of time, of spent nuclear fuel materials because of the lack of an acceptable and technologically feasible and reasonable means for permanent and interim storage of high-level radioactive wastes and spent fuel materials; which thus renders applicant's interim storage as de facto permanent storage.
The Three parties were unable to resolve the admissibility of these contentions.
Thus, each of the parties will submit its written views to the Board on these contentions not later than June 1, 1979.
2311 212
- o-
Contention 14 14.
Applicant has failed to properly evaluate the present inability to dispose of spent fuel assem-blies, which will ultimately result in the necessity of increased expansion of spent fuel storage facilities at the Waterford 3 site.
Applicant, Joint Petitioners, and Staff were able to agree on certain modifications of this contention.
The contention stated above represents the restatement agreed upon by the parties.
The new draft seeks to clarify the earlier contention by deleting the term " spent fuel storage problem".
However, no agreement was reached about the allowability of this redrafted contention, and each of the parties will submit its written views to the Board on this contention not later than June 1, 1979.
Contention 15 15.
Applicant has failed to provide adequate performance criteria for radiation monitors utilized within the facility as regards redundancy,* record-ing, qualification and testing of post-accident and incident monitoring.
Applicant has not, to date, responded to this issue which was originally raised in Section 7.3 of the Saf aty Evaluation Report for the facility.
2}ll
}l} _
Joint Pe_itioners have agreed to withdraw Contention 15, but reserve the right to have issues related to radiation monitoring and arising out of events at Three Mile Island treated in the same manner as that stated in the stipulations regarding Contentions 16 and 18.
See tr. at 94.
Contention 16 16.
Applicant has failed to realistically consider the consequences to the environment, and to human health and safety, or the economic consequences of an occurrence, such as the problem which occurred recently at the 3 Mile Island Facility near Middletown,* Pennsylvania resulting from the fol-lowing:
a.
Breach of the reactor vessel.
b.
Breach of the primary cooling system.
c.
Breach of the containment vessel.
The three parties reached a stipulation at the Prehearing Conference that this contention would be withdrawn, with the understanding that the Joint Petitioners could offer conten-tions arising from events at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant on or before August 1, 1979. See tr. at 94.
Contention 17 17.
Applicant has failed to adequately make provi-sion, according to the Emergency Plan contained in
, 2311 214
Chapter 13.3 of the FSAR, for the following emergency contingencies:
a.
Evacuation of individuals located in the immediate vicinity of the site, within St.
Charles Parish in the event of a serious reactor incident.
b.
Evacuation of population masses located within a 20-mile radius of the Waterford 3 site in the event of a serious reactor incident, as was contemplated during the recent crisis at the 3 Mile Island Facility in Pennsylvania.
c.
Storage of potassium iodine in locations which are readily accessible to affected individuals as protection against thyroid irradiation.
d.
Evacuation of low-and middle-income residents of the Greater Metropolitan New Orleans Area.
The three parties agree that this contention is allowable m
as originally propo ed.
Contention 18 18.
Applicant has failed to adequately evaluate effects on humans and on the environment and on the operational safety of the facility of the following consequences of assumed crack or pipe rupture events: 231.1 215
a.
Consequences of flooding of the containment vessel such as that experienced in the recent 3 Mile Island Facility crisis, b.
Consequences of flooding of the Reactor auxilliary building under circumstances similar to that experienced in the recent 3 Mile Islcnd Facility crisis.
The same stipulation was reached at the Prehearing Conference regarding this contention as that related to Contention 16.
See tr. at 94.
Contentions 19 and 20 19.
Applicant has failed to provide workable solutions to problems of fuel element assembly guide wear
- which is caused to fuel element assemblies by the difference in durability of the fuel element assembly guide tubes which are relatively soft and the cladding on the control rods which is a relatively hard wear surface.
A more complete discussion of this problem is contained in Staff Question 231.1.
20.
Applicant has failed to provide for comprehen-sive solid waste process control program by estab-lishing acceptable process parameters such as pH, ratio of waste to solidification, temperature, etc. 2311 216
which will provide reasonable assurance of compliance with NRC requirements for complete solidification of wet wastes, as more particularly set forth in NRC Staff question 321.6.
The parties agree that these two contentions are allowable as originally submitted by Joint Petitioners.
Contention 21 21.
Applicane has failed to appropriately evaluate the effects of maximum possible flood conditions upon the following:
a.
Availability of back-up cooling, in the event of damage to water irtake and discharge structures in the Mississippi River, b.
Damage to back-up cooling structures which could curtail availability of water supplies required for proper operation of safety systems.
c.
Effects of physical isolation of essential personnel in the control room in the event of a medical emergency, resulting from closure of the primary entrance way into the containment structure.
d.
Effects of lack of accessability of essential personnel in the control room in the event of an emergency requiring evacuation, 2311 217 w
--,,m-m e e+*e-m ee=
- -*em
resulting from closure of the primary entrance way into the containment structure.
The parties agree that this contention is allowable as redrafted above.
Parts a and b of the contention have been reworded from Joint Petitioners' original submission to indicate more clearly the nature of the Petitioners' concern.
Parts e and d have not been modified.
Contention 22 22.
Applicant has failed to discover, acknowledge, report or remedy defects in materials, construction and workmanship such as improperly poured and set concrete and concrete poured without required reinforcement during the fabrication of the contain-ment vessel, (reactor vessel) and/or related integral systems.
The three parties were unable to resolve the admissibility of this contention.
Thus, each of the parties will submit its written views to the Board on this contention not later than June 1, 1979.
Contention 23 23.
Applicant has failed to appropriately evaluate geologic activities within the vicinity of the plant as described by Roger T.
Saucier in the study entitled "Recent Geomorphic History of the 23 2l8
Pontchartrain Basin, Louisiana" published in U.S. Gulf Coastal Studies Technical Report No. 16, part A, which activity could cause external flooding of the facility as well as threaten the structural integrity of the fuel handling building, containment structure and reactor auxilliary building. The three parties have agreed to a slight modification of this contention, wnereby the geologic activites to which the contention refers are restricted to those in the work by Roger T. Saucier cited in the contention. In its redrafted form, the three parties have agreed to the allowability of the conten-tion. Summary In summary, the three parties have reached the following agreements: (1) Contentions 17, 19, and 20 are allowable in the form originally proposed by Joint Petitioners. (2) Contentions 1, ', 21, and 23 are allowable in the modified form stated in th! submission. (3) Contentions 6 and i will be treated consistent with the terms of the stipulations stated in this submission. (4) Contentions 15,16, and 18 will be treated consistent with the terms of the stipulation reached at the Prehearing Conference regarding issues arising from events at the Three Mile Island facility, and are at this time withdrawn. 2311 219
(5) For future purposes, Contention 14 will be considered in its redrafted form. The three parties were unable to reach any agreement on the allowability of Contentions 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 (redrafted) and 22. Accordingly, each party will submit individual written views on these contentions not later than June 1, 1979. Res ctfully submitted, y jj .T tridge / lan R. Yuspeh Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 Street, N.W. Was r ton, 6 i Co nsel for A lican W ym L. J es, i spie Jon 49 Veterans F moria' Boulevard M airie, Loul iana 7 002 Coun fo Joint Petitioners / .= epry urren f.ic the Executive Legal Director U.S. h. lear Regulatory Commission Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Counsel for NRC Staff Dated: May 31, 1979 2311 220 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ) ) Louisiana Power & Light Company ) Docket 50-382 ) (Waterford Steam Electric Station, ) Unit 3) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing " Joint Positions of Applicant, Joint Petitioners, and NRC Staff on Contentions of Save Our Wetlands, Inc. and Oyster-shell Alliance, Inc." were served by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 31st day of May, 1979, to all those on the attached service list. Alan R. Yuspdh ' 2311 221 Dated: May 31, 1979
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) ) LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket 50-332 ) (Waterford Steam Electric Station, ) Unit 3) ) SERVICE LIST Sheldon J. Wolfe Eenry J. McGurren, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Legal Director Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Lyman L. Jones, Jr. Dr. Harry Foreman, Director Gillespie & Jones Center for Population Studies 910 Security Homestead Building Box 395, Mayo 4900 Veterans Memorial University of Minnesota Boulevard Minneapolis; Minnesota 55455 Metairie, Louisiana 70002 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Luke B. Fontana 881 West Outer Drive 824 Esplanade Avenue Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Stephen M. Irving Licensing Board Panel Counsel for Petitioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory One American Plaza - Suite 1601 Commission Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825 Washington, D. C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section 2311 222 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 _}}