ML19262A849
| ML19262A849 | |
| 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 7912110176 | |
| Download: ML19262A849 (17) | |
Text
11/20/79 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
)
(GE Morris Operation Spent Fuel
)
Storage Facility)
)
NRC STAFF'S STATEMENT OF POSITION ON THE CONTENTIONS OF BRIDGET ROREM, ET AL.
I.
Introduction In an August 13, 1979, " Order Ruling on Petitions to Intervene," the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereirafter "the Board") granted the petition for leave to intervene filed by Bridget Rorem and three individuals (Rorem, et al. or Intervenors.)1/ The Notice of Hearing issued by the Board on August 13, 1979, provides that a special prehearing conference will be held pursaant to a notice to be published in the Federal Register at a time and 1/
See " Petition for Leave to Intervene "(May 23,1979) which was filed jointly by Rorem, et al., and Appleseed.
According to the petition for leave to intervene, the four individuals are members of an unincorporated organization called "Appleseed," located in Braidwood, Illinois.
The petition for leave to intervene signed by the four individuals indicated that Appleseed, acting on its own behalf and that of its members, petitioned for leave to intervene.
As pointed out by the NRC Staff in "NRC Staff Response to Petition for Leave to Intervene Filed Jointly by Rorem, Et A1. and Appleseed (June 14,1979),
the petition for leave to intervene by Appleseed was deficient.
In its Order, the Board denied the petition for leave to intervene by Appleseed.
However, the Board's Order provided that it would reconsider intervention by Appleseed, if within 15 days of receipt of the Order, Appleseed cured the deficiencies in the petition noted by the Staff and the Board. The Staff has not received any filing from Appleseed to date.
Acc,rdingly, the Board's denial of intervention by Appleseed remains in effect.
b 1531 024 mot
. 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 Rorem, et al. petition for leave to intervene.
The Staff stated in its response to the Rorem, et al. petition I that the Rorem, et al. petition satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR @ 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 interventionwassought.U However, in the Staff's view, none of the conten-tions listed had the requisite specificity and basis to allow then to be admitted as issues in controversy in this proceeding.
See "NRC Staff Response,"
supra.
Since Rorem, et al. have not amended the petition to set forth their proposed contentions with the requisite specificity and basis, the Staff adheres to the view expressed in its response as to the admissibility of the Rorem, et al. contentions.
The Staff recognizes that Rorem, et al. may amend the 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 prehearing conference is held, fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference.
2_/
See "NRC Staff's Response," supra,.
y See "NRC Staff's Response," supra.
1531 025
, 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 Hearing (Notice of Hearing) in this proceeding (44 Fed. Reg. 48830) and comply with the requirements of 10 CFR s 2.714(b) and applicable Commission case law. See e.g., Duquesne Licht Company (Beaver Valley, Unit No.1),
ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 245 (1973); Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island, Unit Nos.1 and 2), AI.AB-197, 6 AEC 188,194 (1973), aff'd., BPI v.
Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir.1974).
10 CFR Q 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.
1531 026
, Philadelphia Electric Co., et al.
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 & 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974).
The purpose of the basis requirement of 10 CFR Q 2.714 is to assure that the contention in question does not suffer from any of the infirmities listed above, to establish sufficiant 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 unnecessary 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 examining conten-tions 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 (February 26, 1979); Peach Bottom, supra at G AEC 20; Grand Gulf, supra at 6 AEC 426.
In fact, the Appeal Board has recently implied that where a contention 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. fconee-McGuire, supra.
The contentions filed by Roren, et al. in the instant proceeaing were not acccmpanied by a separate statement of bases. While this is not necessarily 1531 U27
, 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 and 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.
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.
Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8,12 (1976).
III.
Contentions and Stu ment of Position Statement of Contention (# 1)
Applicant has filed no environmental impact statement.
Staff Position The Staff opposes this contention because it does not satisfy the basis requirement in 10 CFR Q 2.714.
This contention reflects Intervenor's of misunderstanding of the documerts submitted by the Applicant in support of the license renewal application.
Applicant's document containing environmental information relating to its 1531 028
, license application is generally entitled " Environmental Report." " Environ-mental Impact Statement" or " Environmental Impact Appraisal" is the designa-tion given to the document prepared by the licensing Federal agency.
The Applicant has submitted its environmental information in connection with the proposed license renewal in two documents entitled " Operating Experience-Irradiated Fuel Storage Morris Operation" (January 1979) and a " Consolidated Safety Analysis Reiport" (CSAR) (January 1979).
The Staff will issue the appropriate documents containing the findings of its analysis of the environ-mental issues related to the proposed license renewal.
If Intervenors are alleging that Applicant has not filed the necessary environmental documents, the foregoing shows this allegation to be without basis.
If, on the other hand, Intervenors are alleging that the Staff has not filed the appropriate environmental document, such allegation is premature.
As explained above, the appropriate documents will be filed upon completion by the Staff of its environmental review of the GE application.
Accordingly, this contention is without basis and sh',old be rejected.
Statement of Contention (# 2)
There are no evacuation plans for the area, nor are there health care facilities 50-100 miles from the facility equipped to treat large numbers of people for radiation exposure.
Staff Position The Staff opposes this contention on the grounds that it is vague and lacks the requisite specificity and basis.
1531 029
. The Applicant was required to submit in its application for license renewal, a plan for coping with emergencies.
This plan, "Raaiological Emergency Plan for Morris operation, NEDE-21894, Class II (revised October 1978)," along with a previously submitted general emergency plan, a physical secut.ty plan, and a plan for transportation emergencies, constitute the planning base for response to emergency situations. There is also information in the rSAA, Section 9.5 " Emergency Plan" and A-Series revisions, which was con-sidered by the Staff in its review of the adequacy of the GE Morris emergency pl ans. 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.
There is no basis fur the allegation that there are no medical facilities 50-100 miles from the facility equipped to treat large numbers of people for radiation exposure.
Intervenor merely makes a generalized, conclusory allega-tion, without specifying the meaning of " medical facility," "large numbers of people" and " radiation exposure." As presently worded, the contention is too vague and lacking in basis to reasonably alert the other parties as to the matters which they must address.
In view of the foregoing, this contention should be rejected.
1531 030
- .. Statement of Contention (* 3)
Renewal of license should take into account the close proximity of the Morris Spent Fuel Storage Installation to Dresden Nuclear Station.
(a) Dresden Nuclear Station has a poor safety record.
(b) There is a concentration of spent fuel in the area; if an accident at one storage pool causes it to go critical, the other site will be affected.
(c) The GE facility may be affected by the attempted decontamination of Dresden Unit One, for which no environmental impact statement has been filed.
Staff Position The Staff believes that this contention is not written with sufficient specificity and basis to satisfy 10 CFR % 2.714.
Intervenor provides no indication as to the meaning of "take into account" or in what manner the proposed renewal of GE's license must deal with the close proximity of the GE Morris site to the Dresden Nuclear Power Station (DNPS) site.
There is no reason to believe that the proposed renewal of GE's license to operate the GE Morris facility will fail to appropriately consider the close proximity of these facilities. There are numerous refer-ences in the Applicant's CSAR, Chapter 3, " Site Characteristics" to the Dresden reactors (see pp. 3-5, 3-6, 3-12, 3-18, 3-19).
Both the NRC EIA and Safety Evaluation Report (SER) related to the increase in the GE Morris 4/
The Morris facility site is bordered on the north by the DNPS site (2,300 acres).
See p. 7 of the NRC Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) (December 1975), which was prepared in connection with the license amendment authorizing increase of the GE Morris spent fuel storage capacity to its present level, l531 031
.. spent, fuel storage capacity to its present level reflect that the GE Morris site is contiguous to the DNPS site.
No basis is presented to support the assertions in subparagraphs (a), (b),
and (c).
Intervenor provides us no indication as to the nexus between the safety record at DNPS and the proposed GE Morris license renewal.
- Likewise, Intervenor does not specify how the GE Morris facility may be affected by any events at DNPS, such as that set forth in subparagraph (c).
In the Staff's view, the contention as written is so vague and lacking in basis as to prevent a determination as to whether further inquiry at a hearing is necessary.
Statement of Contention (# 4)
On February 23, 1979, the ad hoc subcommittee of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission discussed possible causes of a major disaster in a spent fuel facility.
If thc cc=ittcc's concerns are realistic, citizens of the Morris area are threatened by a possible major disaster because of the spent fuel facility. Citizens should be infonned of the findings of that committee before the license is renewed.
Staff Position This contention is completely lacking in specificity and basis and therefore should be rejected.
In addition, the contention appears to be merely a request, which in its present fonn, is so vague that the Staff cannot ascer-tain what committee and which findings Intervenor refers to. To the Staff's knowledge, there is no "ad hoc subcommittee of the NRC."
The staff is aware 1531 032
., of a meeting of a subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe-guards (ACRS) which was held on February 23, 1979, which discussed seismic requirements of a new proposed part 72 of the Commission's regulations.
However, no nexus has been shown between this meeting and Morris facility.
To satisfy the specificity and basis requirements of 10 CFR 6 2.714, Inter-venor must show a nexus between the subject matter dis:ussed by the subcom-mittee and the scope of this proceeding.
Statement of Contention (* 5)
The facility is not secure from acts of sabotage or natural occurrences such as earthquakes.
Staff Posi'ig The Staff opposes this contention on the grounds that it is vague and lacks specificity and basis and that it appears to be an impemissible attack on the Comnission's regulations.
With respect to that part of the contention relating to sabotage, it is +he Staff's view that Intervenor has provided no basic for the allegation that the GE Morris facility is not secure from acts of sabotage.
In addition, Intervenor has not specified the particular acts of sabotage which allegedly pose a threat to the facility.
In this regard, 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 detemined that GE Morris satisfies these requirements.
To the extent that the contention alleges that the physical security regulations in 10 CFR Q 73.50 are invalid 1531 033
,. or inadequate, this contention is barred by 10 CFR 9 2.758. Under 6 2.758, the Commission has withheld jurisdiction from a licensing board to entertain attacks on the validity of Commission regulations in individual licensing proceedings, except in "special circumstances." Potomac Electric Power Co.
(Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 88-89 (1974).
10 CFR $ 2.758 sets out those special circumstances which an Int.ervenor must show to be applicable before a contention attacking the regulations will be admissible.
Intervenor has not provided any b6 sis for the second part of the contention.
In the Staff's view, this consists merely of a generalized conclusory state-ment, that the facility is not secure from natural occurrences, without specifying these natural occurrences other than earthquakes that allegedly pose a threat to the security of the facility.
Intervenor has not indicated in what way the facility is not secure from earthquakes.
The Staff notes that the Applicant's CSAR, Chapter 3.7 and CSAR, Tppendix B, give extensive consideration to the geology and seismology of the GE Morris site.
There is discussion in 3.7.5 of the " Earthquake Design Basis," which is also discussed in Chapter 4, " Design Criteria and Compliance."
In addition, the Staff's 1975 SER, supra, evaluated the radiological consequences of certain postulated accidents, including earthquakes. AccorJing to the Staff's SER:
"The basin facilities have been designed to resist seismic phenomena under maximum earthquake conditions and the storage-basket-grid complex has undergone rigorous seismic shock testing to demonstrate its reliability under earthquake conditions (M. J. Roser. field et al., Seismic Shock Environment Test of 1531 034
,. Simulated Nuclear Fuel Storage Basket, Department of '.he Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Technical Report M-150, August 1975). The staff reviewed this report as well as the licensee's design and analysis on the basket grid system as part of its structural evaluation and it is concluded that the design is adequate to withstand the design basis earthquake."
(Emphasis added).
Staff SER, p. 20.
Intervenor has offered no basis to call into question the Applicant's and Staff's conclusion that the GE Morris facility is secure from earthquakes.
Statement 6f Contention (# 6)
There is a lack of long-range plans for storage of spent fuel rods.
The GE Morris Operation may have to store fuel rods for a longer period of time than the life expectancy of the facility.
Sttff Position The itaff opposes this contention on the grounds that it seeks to raise an issue that it is not proper for litigation in an inaividual licensing preceeding.
The GE Morris license renewal application seeks only renewal of the license for the specified period of twenty years. To the extent that this contention attempts to raise the issue of storage of spent fuel at GE Morris beyond twenty years, it is seeking to raise a matter beyond the scope of this pro-ceeding and must be rejected. The Staff believes that an issue concerning possible use of the GE Morris facility for lone-term storage (beyond the requested term of the license) and/or permanent disposal of nuclear waste may not be considered in this proceeding, because the Commission has 1531 035
.., initiated a rulemaking proceeding to " reassess its degree of confidence that radioactive wastes produced by nuclear facilities will be safely disposed 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. Ret. 61372 (OctoberP5,1979).
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 license will continue to be subjects for adjudication in individual facility licensing proceedings.
The Commission has decided, how-ever, that during this proceeding the issues being considered in the rulemaking should not be addressed in individual licensing procezdings.
These issues are most appropriately addressed in a gener ic proceeding of the character here envisaged." 44 Fed. Reg. 61373.
In view of the foregoing, it is clear that any consideration of storage of spent fuel beyond the tenn of the license is not permissible.
Statement of Contention (8 7)
In the event of an accident, property values and the economic structure of the community would be ociaged.
Staf f Position The Staff opposes this contention because Intervenor has not provided any supporting facts or basis.
In addition, there is no indication as to the 531 036 9
s
.., meaning of " economic structure" and "the community." For these reasons, the contention is so vague and lacking in basis that it does not reasonably alert the parties as to the matters which they must address and therefore the contention should be rejected.
Statement of Contention (* 8)
Applicant has not demonstrated that there will be no adverse effects from low-level radiation.
Staff Position The Staff opposes this contention on the ground that it lacks specificity and basis and constitutes an impermissible challenge to the Commission's regulatory requirements and regulations.
Intervenors have not identified the " adverse effects" mentioned in the contention.
The Staff further notes that the regulatory requirement with regard to exposure to radiation, is that exposure to radiation be kept "as low as reasonably achievable," not that the Applicant demonstrate that there will be no " adverse effects" from low-level radiation. The Applicant's CSAR describes the radiation protection program at GE Morris (See Chapter 7, pp.
7-1 to 7-34). The Staff has provided estimates of the types and amounts of radioactive effluents released free if. riorris.
In particular, such estimates are found in the EIA issued in December 1975 in connection with the fr rease of the GE Morris storage capacity to its present level.
(Sac. II, " Summary Description of Probable Impacts," subsection b., " Radiological Effluents,"
pp. 14-21. ) The Staff will reassess these estimates as part of the environ-mental review conducted for the proposed license renewal.
1531 037
.., With respect t' > missions of radioactive material from GE Morris, it should be notri t;iat tu r Morris facility is required to adhere to the standards in - CFR Part 20. To the extent that this contention alleges that Part 20 star,s Jrds are inappropriate, the contention constitutes an impemissible challenge to the Commission's regulations, wFich is barred by 10 CFa 9 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.
Statement of Contention U 9)
Transport of spent fual to the facility involves substantial risk of dis-pursal [ sic] due to accident or sabotage. The containers used for transport of spent fuel are not as secure as those used for high level waste and are vulnerable to damage in rail or highway accidents.
An act of sabotage could cause severe dispursal [ sic] of long-lived isotopes.
Staff Position The Staff opposes this contention because it lacks any particularization of basis and because it constitutes an impermissible challenge to the Commis-sion's regulations. The packaging and transportation of spent fuel is governed by 10 CFR Part 71, " Packaging of Radioactive Material For Transport and Transportation of Radioactive Material Under Certain Conditions," and 10 CFR Part 73, " Physical Protection of Plants and Materials."
In addition, the regulations of the Department of Transportation (D0T) apply to trans-portation of spent fuel. The containers used to ship spent fuel must meet the requirements in 10 CFR Part 71.
In this regard, the Staff notes that there is no transportation of high level wastes and therefore Intervenor's statement regarding the containers "used for high level waste" is in error.
1531 033
The NRC has recently established interim requirements for the protection of spent fuel in transit from sabotage.
These requirements, in the fonn of an amendment to the NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 73, were published in the Federal Register on June 15, 1979, 44 Fed. Reg. 34466.
The public was invited to submit its views and comments on these interim regulations.
After reviewing these views and comments, the Commission may reconsider or modify the interim rule as it deems necessary. There is no basis for the contention that these regulations will not serve the purposes for which they were adopted with respect to the transportation of spent fuel to or from the GE Morris facility.
Accordingly, this contention must be rejected.
IV.
Conclusion For the above reasons, the Staff believes that none of the contentions in the Roreni, et al. petition for leave to intervene satisfy the requirements in 10 CFR % 2.714 regarding specificity and basis.
Accordingly, R.orem, el al. should not be allowed to participate as an Intervenor in this proceeding.
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 conferen:e or if no special prehearing conference is held, fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference.
Respectfully submitted, 1%a.sfa (dl4sw fithichIcl Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 20th day of November,1979 1531 039
4 T
UNITED STAiES OF AMERICA h
n NUCLCAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b'
i
['
d' ',
BEFORE THE AT9MIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDn j
,t-in the Matter of
)
j4
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-1308
)
(Renewal of SNM-1265) 7fp#u (GE Morris Operation Spent Fuel
)
Storage Facility)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S STATDIENT OF POSITION ON THE CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS" and "PRC STAFF STATDIENT OF POSITION ON THE CONTENTIONS OF BRIDGET ROREM, ET AL." in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 's internal mail system, this 20th day of November, 1979:
Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq., Chairman Bridget Little Rorem Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Essex, IL 60935 3320 Estelle Tecrace Wheaton, MD 20906 Edward Firestone, Esq.
Legal Operation Dr. Linda W.
Little General Electric Company 5000 Hermitage Drive 175 Curtner Avenue Raleigh, NC 27612 Mail Code 822 San Jose, CA 95125 Dr. Forrest J. Renick 305 East Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Board State College, PA 16801 Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Susan N. Sekuler, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 Dean Hansell, Esq.
Of fice of the Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 188 West Randolph Street Panel (5)s Sulte 2315 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chicago, IL 60601 Washington, DC 20555 Ronald Szwaj kowski, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section (5)r Matthew A. Rooney, Esq.
Office of the Secretary Meyer, Brown & Platt U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 231 South LaSalle Street Washington, DC 20555 Chicago, IL 60604 Me Marj 1 man Rothschild Counsel for h1C Staff 1531 040