ML19289E950
| ML19289E950 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1979 |
| From: | Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905290576 | |
| Download: ML19289E950 (14) | |
Text
\\
8 {,E.
'C ECC; :, "'ENT ROOM
.t QM
'Q
' M gp31 1 g737 'r@
[)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q,
,@,iy @.. g!
g-
,a b
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-369
)
50-370 (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)
April 10, 1979 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON MOTIONS TO REOPEN RECORD l.
CESG's Petition to Reopen the Safety Phases of Licensing Procecdings for Duke Power's McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations On January 28, 1979, the Carolina Environmental Study Group (CESG), an intervenor in the above-identified proceeding, petitioned the Comission to reopen the safety phases of the licensing proceedings for Duke Power Company's Catawba Nuclear Station and McGuire Nuclear S tation. On March 7,1979, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation advised CESG that its request to reopen the Catawba proceed-ing is being treated as a request under 10 CFR 52.206 of the Commission's regulations. However, since the matter of issuance of operating licenses for the McGuire facility is currently pending before this Board, CESG's request to reopen the safety phase of the McGuire proceeding has been referred to us. On the same day, we issued an order advising the parties 79052905 %
2003 257
., that we were treating the CESG request as a motion to reopen the record in this proceeding and directed the Applicant and the NRC Staff to file timely answers to the motion.
On March 23, 1979, the Applicant and the NRC Staff each filed an answer urging the Board to deny CESG's Petition to Reopen. We have re-viewed all of the filings and for the reasons set forth below conclude that the matters raised by CESG do not establish good cause for reopen-ing the record in this proceeding. Accordingly, the request is denied.
Discussion CESG's motion to reopen the safety phase of this proceeding is l
grounded upon the Commission's January 18, 1979, policy statement con-cerning the Reactor Safety Study (Rasmussen Report or WASH-1400) in which the Commission, among other things, withdrew its approval of the Executive Summary of WASH-1400.N However, CESG states in its petition that the "Rasmussen Report was not relied on in making the safety evalua-tions of either McGuire or Catawba." Thus, there is no nexus between the E"NRC Statement on Risk Assessment and the Reactor Safety Study Report (WASH-1400) in light of the Risk Assessment Review Group Report", dated January 18, 1979.
See press release No. 79-19 entitled, " Nuclear Regu-latory Commission Issues Policy Statement on Reactor Safety Study and Review by Lewis Panel", mailed January 19, 1979.
Z
~3 258
~. -~-
- -m - s em n ~m.. _ _ _ _
. 1.
In reviewing the Clinch River application, the staff used the RSS analyses of the time to contain-ment failure for various core melt sequences as an aid in determining what licensing requirements would assure comparability of residual (Class 9) risks between the CRBR and LWRs generally.
If the Clinch River review is reactivated or another similar review is requested, this licensing position should be reconsidered.
2.
In the report on ATWS, the NRR staff used the RSS estimates L7 the overall probability of core melt as a benchmark in recommending a quantitative safety objective for ATWS. The staff is reconsidering the degree of reliance on the RSS in light of the Review Group report and expects that the forthcoming sup-plement to NUREG-0460 will take an approach which is consistent with the Review Group's recommendations.
3.
In addressing the concerns of an ACRS consu1 tant re-lating to d.c. power supply reliability, ',ae staff utilized WASH-1400 to confirm the stafC s conclusion that adequate protection of the publi health and safety had been provided, and tha'. the evaluation of this generic issue was proceeGg at a reasonable pace. The use of WASH-1400 in the staff evaluation of this issue is being reconsidered as a part of the resolution of Task Action Plan A-30 dealing with the adequacy of d.c. power supplies.
The first item is limited to Clinch River and has no applicability to the instant proceeding.
CESG has not raised d.c. power supply relia-bility as an issue and therefore the third item is also inapplicable.
The only item possibly related to McGuire is the ATAS issue inasmuch as CESG has made reference thereto.E However, an examination Vol. 3 UCESG's allegation asserts that WASH-1270 requires " dual independent control rod systems". WASH-1270 is a technical report which merely lists possible approaches to address Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATAS); it imposes no requirements upon any applicant.
2C3 259
l l
. has undertaken an in-house study "to provide a basis for submitting recom;rendations to the Congress regard-ing the extension or modification of he Price-Anderson Act." A draft version of the study.eport was circulated for comment in April,1974. On October 30,1975, the NuclearRegulatoryCommissj!gn announced that the final report had been completed._
The Commission later connissioned an assessrant of WASH-1400:
The Risk Assessment Review Group, chartered by the NRC in July, 1977 to " provide advice and information to the Commission on the final report of the Reactor Safety Study, WASH-1400," and related matters, sub-mitted its report to the Commission on September 7, 1978. The Review Group, chaired by Professor Harold Lewis of the University of California at Santi Barbara, was formed in response to letters from Congressman Udall, Chairman of the House Connittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, expressing misgivings about the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400), and in particular about the
" Executive Summary" published with the Main Report.
It was expected that the Review Group's report would " assist the Commission in establishing policy regarding the use of risk assessment in the regulatory process" and that it ions of the would " clarify the achievements and limitag/
Reactor Safety Study." [ footnotes omitted]_
S/ Ibid.,p. 1.
-f c1 ;]
<_ 60
!! Ibid.,p. 1.
. In its petition, CESG also attempts to use the Comission's posi-I tion on WASH-1400 as a vehicle for relitigating additional matters, most of which were previously considered at length in this proceeding. These include need for power, stud bolts, Class-9 accidents, and ice-condenser pressure suppression containments. However, CESG presents no specifica-l tion of any factual information that would support a proposal that the Licensing Board probe these matters.
}
Need for power and cost-benefit balancing of need for power bear l
no relationship to the Rasmussen Report. Moreover, CESG has failed to present new or significant information. The adequacy of the " stud bolt" data was addressed in the McGuire Construction Permit decision and CESG abandoned this contention in the present Operating License I
proceeding. As noted by the Appeal Board recently, "[t]he policy that environmental statements on (land-based) plants generally need not con-sider Class 9 accidents rests upon a 1971 Commission judgment that their likelihood is so remote as to make them incredible." Offshore Power System (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), ALAB-489, 8 NRC 194, 212 (1978).
Thus, WASH-1400 clearly was not the basis on which Class 9 accidents were excluded from detailed discussion in this and other individual licensing proceedings for land-based reactors.
Regarding the " ice con-denser type pressure suppression containment" utilized in the McGuire design, we note that the matter was raised by CESG at the Construction U ~3 261
. J 2.
CESG's Renewal of Motion to Reopen Environmental Hearina to Add Contention (3) i On September 8,1978, Intervenor CESG filed a motion seeking to reopen the environmental phase of the hearing which is now closed. CESG would have the Board accept a contention relating to the environmental effects of the fuel cycle, particularly regarding the storage of high-1 level wastes, on the ground that "[t]he absence of even a plan for tne long term storage of nuclear wastes... makes meaningless the projected radiological impacts of waste given in the Final Environmental Impact I
Statement."
i In their oppositions to CESG's motion, Applicant and Staff point out that the motion raises no new matters not raised in a similar motion i
filed by CESG on June 26, 1978, and denied by this Board's Memorandum and Order of August 14, 1978 (unpublished). Applicant and Staff do point out that in the instant motion, CESG ht low requested that the matter raised in the motion be certified to the Comission. Applicant and Staff oppose this request.
The Board agrees that CESG has not presented any new or signifi-cant material which would bear on the Board's ruling of August 14, 1978.
Accordingly, the instant motion is denied for the reasons set forth in our Memorandum and Order of August 14, 1978. The request for c'artifica-tion also must be denied. The Comission's policy regarding the environ-mental effects of the fuel cycle is well settled.
It has not changed 2'03 262
- following negotiations among CESG, Staff and Applicant which led to a stipulation of contentions.
In the circumstances (i.e., the record having been closed but no t
initial decision issued), we believe the Staff states the appropriate legal principle against which to judge the CESG motions. Accordingly, we weigh the five factors governing untimely petitions to intervene s(t 4
forth in 10 CFR 52.714.
1.
Has CESG shown good cause for its untimely filing? With re-gard to the emergency plan, CESG's argument that " good cause" has been shown is brief:
This issue is raised at this date because the issue was postponed to the SER stage. Clarification of the plan... was received in July, :378, during discovery for the July-August,1978 hearings. This is the first chance to raise this contention Intervenors have had.
CESG's statement that it has not had a prior opportunity to raise this issue is clearly incorrect. CESG did include an emergency planning contention in its Petition to Intervene and subsequently abandoned it.
Staff points out that the plan itself has been available to CESG since February 1976 and the Staff's evaluation of it since March 1978. CESG does not explain how the supposed " clarification" of the plan in July 1978 now requires that the contention be taken up. Clearly in these circumstances, " good cause" has not been shown.
2CE3 263
absence of specific allegations of inadequacies in the Applicant's design of the ice condenser system or in the emergency plan, or the Staff's re-view of them, we are of the opinion that the Staff's review does repre-sent CESG's and the public's interests adequately.
5.
Would CESG's participation broaden the issues or delay the proceeding? Clearly, where the record has been closed and the Board is engaged in formulating its decision, the issues would be broadened.nd the proceeding delayed.
In light of the above discussion, CESG's motions to add Conten-tions (4) and (5) are denied.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Y.
QAh e
RobertM.Lazo,'Ch'ai'rgn' Dated at Bethesda, Maryland.
this 10th day of April,1979.
2.'23 264
_