ML19262A838
| ML19262A838 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308 |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1979 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19262A839 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912110142 | |
| Download: ML19262A838 (23) | |
Text
11/20/79 e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMtilSSION
_BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-1308
)
ME Porris Operation Spent Fuel
)
Storage Facility)
)
NRC STAFF'S STA1EMENT OF POSITION ON THE CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE OF ILLIN0IS I.
Introduction In an August 13,1979, " Order Ruling on Petitions to Intervene," the Atonic Safety and Licensing Board (hereinaf ter "the Board") granted the petition 1 filed by the State of Illinois (hereinaf ter " Inter-for leave to intervene venor" or " Illinois").
The Notice of Hearing issJed by the Board on August 13, 1979, provides that a special prehearing conference will be held pursuant to a notice to be published in the Federal Register at a time and place to be set by the Board in the near future. According to the Notice of Hearing, at the special prehearing conference, the Board will consider all intervention petitions and discuss specific issues to be considered at the evidentiary hearing. To assist the Board at the prehearing conference, the Staff is filing this statement of position on the contentions contained in the 2/
Illinois' petition for leave to intervene 1_/
The Board also granted the request of the State to participate as an interested State pursuant to 10 CFR 9 2.715(c).
2_/
See " Petition for Leave to Intervene," (May 21, 19 79 ), pp. 4-7.
L -
7912110 I
1531 001
., The Staff stated in its reponse to Illinois' petition that Illinois satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 9 2.714 pertinent to " interest" and that the contentions in the petition set forth a reasonable identification of the specific aspects of the subject matter as to which intervention was sought.
However, in the Staff's view, none of the contentions listed had the requisite specificity and basis to allow them to be admitted as issues in controversy in this proceeding.
" Staff Response," supra, pp. 2-3.
Since Illinois has not amended its petition to set forth its proposed conceni.lons with the requisite specificity and basis, the Staff adheres to the view expressed in its reponse as to the admissibility of Illinois' contentions. The Staff recognizes that Illinois may amend its petition for leave to intervene without prior approval of the presiding officer at any time up to fifteen (15) days prior to the special prehearing conference or if no special pre-hearing conference is held, fifteen days prior to the first prehearing conference.
10 CFR S 2.714(a)(3).
Below is a discussion of certain legal principles which the Staff believes should govern consideration of the contentions and the Staff's position with respect to each contention.
II.
General Principles Governing Admission of Contentions As a general precept, for contentions to be found admissible, they must fall within the scope of the issues set forth in the Federal Register Notice of
-3/
See "NRC Staff's Response to Petition for Leave to Intervene File-by The State. of Illinois," (June 11, 1979), pp. 2-3.
1531 002
s
, Hearing (Notice of Hearing) in this proceeding (43 Fed. Reg. 48830) and comply with the requirements of 10 CFR Q 2.714(b) and applicable Commission case law.
See e.g., Duquesne Light Company (Beaver Valley, Unit No.1),
ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 245 (1973); Northern States Power, Company (Prairie Island, Unit Hos.1 and 2), ALAB-197, 6 AEC 188,194 (1973), aff'd., BPI v.
Atomic Encmy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir.1974).
10 CFR G 2.714(b) requires that a list of contentions which intervenors seek to have litigated be filed along with the bases for those contentions set forth with reasonable specificity. A contention must be rejected where:
(a) it constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirements; (b) it challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (c) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the intervenor's views of what applicable policies ought to be; (d) it seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; and (e) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.
Philadelphia Electric Co., et al.
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 6 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974).
The purpose of the basis requirement of 10 CFR @ 2.714 is to assure that the contention in question does not suffer from any of the infirmities listed 1531 003
. above, to establish sufficient foundation for the contention to warrant further inquiry of the subject matter in the proceeding, and to put the other parties sufficiently on notice so that they will know generally what they must defend against or oppose.
Peach Bottom, supra.
From the stand-point of basis, a detailing of the evidence which will be offered in support of the contention is uncacessary and an evidentiary foundation is not required.
Peach Bottom, supra; Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973).
In examin-ing contentions and the bases therefore to determine admissibility, a licensing board is not to reach the merits of the contentions.
Duke Power Co.
( Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773-Transportation of Spent Fuel From Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station), ALAB-528
( Februa ry 26, 1979); Peach Bottom, supra at 8 AEC 20; Grand Gulf, supra at 6 AEC 426.
In fact, the Appeal Board has recently implied that where a conten-tion is adequately specific and appears to contain the basis within the contention itself, no separate basis is required and the contention is admissible if it is not otherwise objectionable. Oconee-McGuire, supra.
The contentions filed by Illinois in the instant proceeding were not accom-panied by a separate statement of bases. While this is not necessarily fatal, it does, in the Staff's view, make it incumbent upon this Intervenor to set forth contentions, which, on their face, are sufficiently detailed dnd specific to demonstrate that the issues raised are admissible and that further inquiry is warranted, and to put the other parties on notice of what they must address.
1531 004
, In addition, the Appeal Board has twice indicated that special care should be taken when a hearing is not mandatory, as is the case here, to assure that an asserted contention raises an issue clearly open to adjudication.
Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974) and Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (William H.
Zinner Nuclear Power Station, ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8,12 (1976).
III.
Contentions and Staff Position Statenent of Contention The Consolidated Safety Analysis Report (hereinafter "CSAR") orepared by the Applicant does not provide reasonable assurance, as required by 42 U.S.C.
% 2232(a) and 10 C.F.R. par. [ sic] 50.34, 50.40, 70.22 and 70.23, that the expansion and operation of the Morris facility will not endanger the health and safety of the public in the following respects:
Staff Position The above introductory paragraph is followed by subparagraphs A., B.,
C.,
E., F., G.,
H.,
I., J., L. and M., each of which will be addressed by the Staff below.
With respect to the above introductory paragraph, the Staff notes that the proposed licensing action at issue here concerns the application by General Electric Company (GE) for renewal, pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, of its license for the Morris Operation Spent Fuel Storage Facility (herein-after "GE Morris" or "GE Morris facility").
10 CFR Part 50 " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" does not govern the proposed t
licensing action at issue.
In addition, the reference to the expansion of 1531 005
, the Morr 4cility is also inappropriate, since the action which will be the sudect of these hearings is the proposed renewal of GE's license for the Morris Operation, which would authorize continued operation, but not expansion, of the facility. There are additional references throughout the proposed contentions of the State of Illinois to the " expanded operation" of the Morris facility and to certain 10 CFR Parts 50, which indicates lack of understanding as to the nature of. the proposed licensing action and the applicable regulatory requirements.
Statement of Contention (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 lite of the facility; 2.
the storage of mixed Pu0 -UO fuel r ds; 2
2 3.
the possible loss of fuel element and cladding integrity over the life of the facility.
Staff Position The Staff opposes this contention on the grounds that it seeks to raise an issue beyond the scope of this proceeding and that it is vague and does not satisfy the basis and specificity requirements of 10 CFR S 2.714.
With respect to subparagraph 1, the Staff notes that the proposed licensing action, re-'wal of GE's license, would authorize GE to operate the Morris facility f, receive, possess, store and transfer irradiated fuel from light water reactors to its Morris facility for a specified period of time.
The 1531 006
Staff is not considering renewal of the license for an indefinite period such as "the life of the facility." To the extent that this contention suggests *, hat the documents submitted by GE in support of its license renewal application must support renewal for "the life of the facility," this conten-tion must be rejected as not within the scope of the issues set forth in the Federal Register Notice of Hearing in this proceeding (44 Fed. Rec. 48830) and the Federal Register Notice " General Electric Co.; Consideration of Renewal of Materials License No. SNM-1265 Issued to GE Morris Operation Fuel Storage Installation" (44 Fed. Reg. 24354), April 25, 1979.4/
The Staff further notes that the Applicant's CSAR contains data on projected population levels through 1980.
See CSAR, 3.2.3, " Population, Distribution and Trends." There is no basis contained in this subparagraph of Contention A.
for the belief that the population will increase so much over the present level that exoosure of the public to radioactive effluents has been inade-quately calculated.
Subparagraph 2. of Contention A. contains an error of fact, since the GE Morris license does not provide for storage of " mixed Pu0 -U0 " fuel rods 2
2 at the facility. There is no such fuel presently at the facility, nor is there any 4j These issues include those arising under the Atomic Erergy Act (specifically, those specified in 10 CFR Q 70.23 of the Commission's regulations promulgated thereunder) and the National Environmental Policy Act (specifically those specified in 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations promulgated thereunder) as relevant to this license renewal application.
1531 007
, reason to believe that such fuel will be stored at Morris.
Accordingly, there is simply no basis for this portion of Contention A.
In subparagraph 3 of Contention A., Illinois again seeks to have the Board and Staff consider renewal of GE's license for an indefinite period, the
" life of the facility." As previously stated, the license will only be renewed for a specified period of time.
In a dition, this contention is lacking in any basis for the allegation that there will be a loss of fuel element and cladding integrity and the Staff is not aware of any such occur-rences involving spent fuel in storage.
Intervenor does not identify any deficiency in the Morris facility or the fuel stored there which would cause loss of fuel element and cladding integrity.
For these reasons, this portion of Contention A. is not admissible because it lacks the necessary specificity and is too speculative.
In view of the above deficiencies, contention A and all its subparagraphs should be rejected.
Statement of Contention (B.)
The CSAR's description and analysis of the possibility and consequences of the following accidents is inadequate:
1.
loss of fuel basin cooling; 2.
fuel basin liner rupture due to cusk accident; 3.
fuel basket drop / criticality.
Thus Applicant cannot assure that the public will be protected from undue exposure to radioactive material.
50 1
9 Staff Position The Staff opposes this contention on the grounds that it is vague and lacks the requisite specificity and basis, and that it appears to be an impennissible attack on the Commission's regulations.
Inter <enor simply asserts that the CSAR description and analysis of three particular types of accidents is inadequate, without specifying the inade-quacies in the descriptions and analysis of these accidents.E The accident listed in Item 1 is discussed in the CSAR, 6 8.2.
" Loss of Fuel Basin Cooling." Item 2 is discussed in the CSAR 9 8.3.1.
" Basin Liner Rupture Experience," and Appendix A to the CSAR, (A.13) contains " Cask Drop Analyses."
Item 3 is discussed and analyzed in the CSAR, i 0.7.2.
" Fuel Basket Drop Accident." The ciiticality aspect of a postulated drop accident is discussed in Section 8.10 of the CSAR.
Section A.11.4 of Appendix A to the CSAR shows how protection against accidental criticality in the fuel storage system is provided. Absent an indication as to why the CSAR's discussion and analyses of these accidents is inadequate, the contention must fail for lack of specificity and basis.
In addition, the contention's conclusion is vague 29d is without basis.
There is no indication as to the meaning the tenn " undue exposure to radio-active material." With respect to protection of the public from emissions 5/
See CSAR, Chapter 8, " Accident Safety Analysis" which contains analyses of a number of postulated accidents, including those listed in Contention B.
1531 009 l'J.TI 000
, of radioactive material from Morris, it should be noted that GE Morr s is required to adhere to the standards in 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards For Radia-tion Protection." To the extent that this contention alleges that Part 20 standards are inappropriate, the contention constitutes an impermissible attak on the Commission's regulations, which would be barred by 10 CFR l 2.758, absent "special circumstances" that specify how these radiation protection standards would not serve the purposes for which they were adopted with respect to GE Morris.
Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 88-89 (1974).
For the foregoing reasons, this contention must be rejected.
Statement of Contention (C.)
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 fiorris facility; 3.
the re' ease of radioactive cesium from spent fuel elements during a loss-of-coolant transportation accident; and 4.
tornado related accidents.
Thus, the Applicant cannot assure that the public will be protected from undue exposure to radioactive material.
Staff Position The Staff opposes this contention on the grounds that it is vague and lacks basis and that it is an impermissible attack on the Commission's regula tions.
1531 0i0
, The contention is so vague in its reference to "all possible and credible accidents" that the Staff cannot determine what accidents Intervenor asserts must be described and analyzed. The problem is compounded by the implication that the four categories of accidents enumerated in subparagraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not the only types of accidents which the CSAR allegeoly fails to address.
With respect to the category of accident listed in subparagraph 1, the Staff notes that Intervenor fails to specify what a " sabotage related accident" is or what the consequences of such an accident might be.
In so far as protec-tion of the GE Morris facility from sabotage is concerned, the Staff notes that the GE Morris facility is subject to the requirements in 10 CFR 9 73.50 for physical protection of licensed activities and that the Staff has deter-mined that GE Morris satisfies these requirements.
To the extent that this contention alleges that the physical security regulationi in 10 CFR % 73.50 are invalid or inadequate, this contention is barred by
'.0 CFR @ 2.758.
Under 6 2.758, the Commission has withheld jurisdiction from a licuising board to entertain attacks on the validity of Commission regulations in individual licensing proceedings, except in "special circumstances."
Douglas Point, supra.
10 CFR @ 2.758 sets out those special circumstances which an intervenor must show to be applicable before a contention attacking the regulations will be admissible.
Illinois has not made any showing of special circumstances.
Subparagraph 2 of this contention is likewise vague. There is no particular-ization as to "the interrelationship" between the Dresden nuclear power 1531 011
, plants and GE Morris or how an accident involving those facilities might occur.
Subparagraph 3 of the contention is entirely speculative and lacking in
_ ni s.
Intervenor does not set forth how a loss-of-coolant transportation accident might occur, and how, if such an accident did occur, there would be a release of radioactive cesium from spent fuel elements. The Staff believes that this concern, as presented in this contention, is based entirely on speculation.
Intervenor's allegation in subparagraph 4 that the CSAR does not describe and analyze tornado related accidents is in error.
Chapter 8, Section 8.8.
" Tornado-Generated Missile Accident" (pp. 8-24 to 8-29) discusses tornado related accidents.
Effects of a postulated missile impact on the basin structure of the GE Morris facility are presented in Section 8.4 Criticality aspects of a tornado-generated accident are discussed in Section 8.10.
To the extent that Illinois, in this contention, alleges that the analysis of tornado related accidents in the CSAR is deficient, Illinois does not describe any such alleged deficiencies nor indicate the basis for its belief that such deficiencies exist.
In addition, Illinois does not specify the types of tornado-related accidents which were not considered in the CSAR.
The conclusion in this contention, which refers to Applicant's alleged inability to protect the public from " undue exposure" to radioactive material is also vague and lacking in basis, and appears to be an impermissible 1531 Di2
, attack on the Commission's regulatians. Thus, it is deficient for the same reasons set forth with respect to the conclusion in contention B.
For the above reasons, contention C and its subparagraphs should be rejected.
Statement of Contention (E.)
The CSAR's analysis of sub-surface water behavior and its monitoring program for potential surface and cub-surface water contamin3 tion 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 con-tamination cannot be assured.
Staff Position The Staff opposes this contention on the ground that it is vague and lacks specificity and basis.
There is a very detailed discussion in the CSAR of subsurface water behavior in Chapter 3, Section 3.6, " Subsurface Hydrology." This discussion includes
" Regional and Area Characteristics" (Section 3.6.1); " Site Characteristics" (Section 3.6.2), and " Groundwater Investigation - 1977" (Section 3.6.3).
Absent any particularization as to why the analysis in the CSAR of subsur-face hydrology is deficient, the contention is so vague that the parties cannot ascertain what aspects of this subject must be addressed.
A further deficiency in the contention is the vagueness in the reference to "its monitorisig program for potential surface and subsurface water-contamination."
If Intervenor is alleging that the CSAR is deficient because it fails to
) h ?) b
, describe the Applicant's environmental monitoring program, Intervenor is not looking to the apprep. ate document for a description of the environmental monitoring program. The Applicant's environmental monitoring program is cescribed in its environmental document, " Operating Experience, Irradiated Fuel Str sge," Chapter 5.3.
In addition, the Applicant's environmental document contains " Environmental Monitoring Reports" for 1974, 1976, and 1977.
See Appendices A.,
B., and B-1.
Intervenor has provided no basis for the allegation that the Applicant's monitoring program for potential surface and subsurface water contamination is inadequate or specified any such alleged deficiencies. Likewise lacking in basis is the allegation that the Applicant's ability to protect the public water supply cannot be assured.
In sum, this contention is too vague and lacking in basis to reasonably alert the other parties as to the matters which they must address and the contention therefore should be rejected.
Statement of Contention (F.)
The Applicant has not presented emerggpcy plans to handle the accidents indicated in Contention I.B. and I.C.-
as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix E.
Staff P0sition The Staff opposes this contention on the grounds that it appears to be an impermissible attack or the Commission's regulatory process and regulations,
[/
note that there is no contention "I.B." and contention "I.C.",
igh we assume that Intervenor means contention B.I. and conten-1.
1531 014
. and that it seeks to raise an issue that is not proper for litigation in an individual licensing proceeding.
Appendix E establishes minimum requirements for emergency plans, but does not, as this contention suggests, regt. ire that the emergency plans cover specific accidents. The Applicant was required to submit in its application for license renewal a plan for coping with emergencies.
This plan, " Radio-logical Emergency Plan for Morris Operation, NEDE-21894, Class II (revised October 1978)," along with a general emergency plan, a physical security plan, and a plan for transportation emergencies, constitute the planning base for response to ?mergency situations.
There is also information in the CSAR, Section 9.5 " Emergency Plan" and A-Series revisions, which was consid-ered by the Staff in its review of the adequacy of the GE Morris,1ergency plans. The elements in Section IV of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E were used in judging the adequacy of the emergency plans.
Based upon its review of the GE Morris emergency plans, the Staff concluded that GE Morris meets the requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.
To the extent that this contention alleges that the requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E are inadequate because they fail to include the types of accidents specified in contentions B.1 and C.1, the conte'1 tion is barred by 10 CFR Q 2.758.
1531 015
. Based on the foregoing, the Staff believes contention F should be rejected.
Statement of Contention (G.)
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 occupational personnel for the life of the Morris facility and for the genetic effects to the general population caused by such whole body exposures.
Staff Position The Staff opposes this contention on the grounds that it is vague and lacks basi; and that it appears to be an impermissible challenge to the Commission's regulations The contention is vague because there is no identification of the " health effects" which the CSAR or other documents underestimate or omit. The environ-mental impacts of the Morris facility, including " Morris Operation Effluents and Containment" is discussed in Chapter 5 of the Applicant's environmental report " Operating Experience:
Irradiated Fuel Storage." Chapter 7 of the CSAR discusses " Radiation Protection," which includes " Personal Exposure Assessment" (Sec. 7.5), " Health Physics Program" (Sec. 7.6) and " Estimated Man-Rem Off-Site Assessment" (Sec. 7.7).
The Applicant has calculated the whole body exposure to occupational personnel and such doses have been determined to be within the limitations set forth in 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation." See Sec. 7.5 of the CSAR. To the extent that this contention alleges that Part 20 standards 1531 016
, are inappropriate, the contention constitutes an impermissible challenge to the Commission's regulations, which is barred by 10 CFR S 2.758, absent "special circumstances" that specify how these radiation protection standards would not serve the purposes for which they were adopted with respect to GE Morris.
For these reasons, this contention should not be admitted as an issue in controversy in this proceeding.
Statement of Contention (H.)
The Applicant has failed to analyze the relevant saf..ty and health issues from the perspective of long tem storage of spent fuel at the Morris facility.
Without such an examination, the Applicant cannot assure that the expanded operation of the Morris facility will not endanger the health and safety of the public, now or in the future.
Staff Position The Staff opposes this contention on the grounds that it is vague and lacks basis and that it seeks to raise an issue beyond the scope of this proceeding.
The contention is vague in that there is no more than a conclusory statement that the Applicant nas failed to analyze "the relevant safety and health issues from the perspective of long-tem storage of spent fuel." There is no indication as to what issues should be conside ed "the relevant safety and health issues." Without such an identificat on, the other parties are not reasonably alerted to the matters they must address.
1531 017
. The Staff notes that Illinois again fails to recognize that the licensing action at issue is the proposed renewal of GE's license for the Morris facility, which would authorize continued operacion, but not expansion, of the facility.
%rthermore, the contention lacks specificity in alleging that "long-term storage" must be considered by the Applicant. The GE Morris license renewal application seeks only renewal of the license for the speci-fied period of twenty yei rs.
To the extent that this contention attempts to raise the issue of storaJe of spent fuel at GE Morris beyond twenty years, it is seeking to raise a matter beyond the scope of this proceeding and must be rejected.
The Staf f believes that an issue concerning possible use of the GE Morris facility for long-term storage (beyond the requcsted term of the license) and/or pennanent disposal of nuclear waste may not be considered in this proceeding, because the Commission has initiated a rulemaking proceeding to " reassess its degree of confidence ?. hat radioactive wastes produced by nuclear facilities will be safely dispored of, to determine when any such disposal will be available, and whether such wastes can be safely stored until they are safely disposed of."
See Federal Register notice, " Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste,"
44 Fed. Rec. 61372 (October 25,1979).
In this notice, the Commission stated that:
"During this proceeding the safety implications and environmental impacts of radioactive waste storage on-site for the duration of a 1531 018
. license will continue to be subjects for adjudication in individual facility licensing proceedings. The Commission has decided, however, that during this proceeding the issues being considered in the rule-making should.iot be addressed in individual licensing proceedings.
These issues are most appropriately addressed in a generic proceeding of the character here envisaged." 44 Fed. Rep. 61373.
In view of the foregoing, it is clear that any consideration of storage of spent fuel beyond the term of the license is not permissible.
Statement of Contention (I.)
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 respon-sible 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 expansion and operation of the Morris facility will not endanger the health and safety of the public.
Staff Position The Staff opposes the contention on the grounds that it lacks basis and seeks to raise an issue beyond the scope of this proceeding.
There is no basis for asserting that the GE Morris facility will require perpetual care once it is decommissioned or that the Applicant will abandon the site. The scope of inquiry in the present proceeding relates to whether GE's license to operate the facility should be renewed a id does not extend 1531 019
. *o consideration of the transfer of authority to own and operate the facility.
For the above reasons, this contention must be rejected.
Statement of Contention (J.)
The application dor; not include, as required by 10 CFR Parts 50.33, 70.22 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix F, a discussion of the Applicant's financial ability to carry out removal and disposal of high level and other signi-ficant radioactive wastes at the time of decommissioning and the Applicas financial ability to shut down the facility permanently and perpetually maintain it in a safe condition. This discussion must include sufficient infonnation on possible available decommissioning methods and their feasi-bility in order that a judgment on the Applicant's qualifications may be made.
Staff Position The Staff opposes this contention on the ground that it lacks any particulari-zation of basis.
This contention alleges, in essence, that the Applicant will not be financially qualified to decommission the GE Morris facility.
Intervenor has not specifiad why it believes that the Applicant does not or will not have the financial capability to decommission the facility. To the extent that Intervenor believes that the GE Morris facility is subject to the requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Intervenor is mistaken.
As previously explained, this facility is licensed pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70.
There is nothing in 10 CFR S 70.22 which requires that the license renewal applica-tion contain information relating to the financial qualifications of the 1531 020
. Applicant. We do note that by virture of 10 CFR Q 70.23(5), " Requirements for the approval of application," where the nature of the proposed activi-ties is such as to require consideration by the Commission, a finding that the applicant appears to be financially qualified to engage in the proposed activities in accordance with Part 70 is necessary before an application for a Part 70 license is approved.
The Applicant has provided to the NRC infonnation concerning its financial qualifications to operate the GE Morris facility.
In addition, the CSAR contains a decommissioning plan.
See CSAR, Sec. 9.6 ai Appendix A-7.
To satisfy the particularization requirements of 10 CFR @ 2.714, Intervenor must specify why the Applicant must provide the information covered in contention (J.) and why it is appropriate to consider at this stage, Applicant's financial capability to decommission the facility.
Statement of Contention (l..)
The application is deficient in that it does not include, as required by 10 CFR 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.
Staff Position The only basis for this contention is Intervenor's mistaken belief that 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix F applies to this proposed licensing action.
This contention assumes that the GE Morris facility cannot be fully decommissioned, but lacks any basis for that assumption. Th' licensee's decommissioning plan submitted as part of the CSAR (Appendix A) indicates that the facility can be fully decommissioned.
Intervenor has not identified any aspect of that plan that it believes is deficient or a basis for sucn belief.
1531 021
. In view of the foregoing, this contention should be rejected.
Statement of Contention _(M.)
The Applicant has not presented any evidence that it has acquired eufficient 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.
Staff Position This contention is inadmissible for lack of the requisite specificity and basis.
Intervenor has provided no basis to support the allegation that GE's private insurance is not adequate to cover any claims arising from operation of the Morris facility. With respect to any claims arising from transportation accidents, we note that the Price-Anderson Act provides financial protection for accidents involving transportation of spent fuel between a licensed reactor and a facility such as the GE Morris facility and for transportation of spent fuel between GE Morris and the licensed reactor.
As to such trans-portation accidents, the liability is assumed by the reactor licensee.
IV.
Conclusion For the above reasons, the Staff believes that none of the contentions in the petition for leave to intervene satisfy the requiremer.ts in 10 CFR
% 2.714 regarding specificity and basis.
Accordingly, the State of Illinois 1531 022
. snould nr t be allowed to participate as an Intervenor in this proceeding.E As previously stated, the Staff does recognize however, that the petition for leave to intervene may be amended without prior approval of the presiding officer at any time up to fifteen (15) days prior to the special prehearing conference or if no special prehearing conference is held, fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference.
Respectfully submitted, r, L. ( _ _ ).L.. ~ 12"T. ' i. i n Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 20th day of November, 1979 7/
The Board's August 13, 1979 Order granted the request of the State of Illinois to participate as an Intervenor pursuant to 10 CFR @ 2.714 and
~~
as an interested State pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.715(c).
In the case of renewal of a materials license, as in the case of issuance of an operating license, it is not mandatory that a hearing be held.
10 CFR Q 2.104; Zimmer, ALAB-305, supra.
In such a situation, Licensing Boards have been particularly careful to determine that there is a petitioner who has demon-strated an interest in the outcome of the proceeding and has raised at least one good contention to be considered in the proceeding.
Zimmer, supra; River Bend, ALAB-183, supra. This case law reflects the requirements of 10 CFR 9 2.714, the NRC's regulation on intervention.
It does not appear that the question of whether a petition filed under 10 CFR % 2.715(c), the NRC's regulation on participation by " interested states" in licensing pro-ceedings, can, in the absence of any petitions filed under 9 2.714, invoke a hearing has ever been directly decided. Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry), CLI-73-3, 6 AEC 3 (1973).
1531 023