ML19289F293
| ML19289F293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1979 |
| From: | Mcgurren H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906070175 | |
| Download: ML19289F293 (10) | |
Text
04/25/79 NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT 1(00M UNITED STATES OF A.\\1 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO:.! MISSION BEFORE THE ATO.'ilC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
=
LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT CO:.IPANY
)
Docket No. 50-382 4
)
g[
1 J
\\
(Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3)
)
CY' 9
i 5
6 1
spjitS g NRC STAFF'S POSITION ON CONTENTIONS OF V
THE LOUISIANA CONSUMER'S LEAGUE, INC.
[,
J I. INTRODUCTION Pursu nt to 10 CFR S 2.714(b) which provides that not later than fifteen (15) days prior to holding of the sy wia_1 prehearing conference oursuant to 10 CFR S 2.751a. a petitioner shall file a supplement to his petition to intervene which must include a list of contentions which petitioner seeks to have litigated, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasenable specificity, on April 9, 1979 Louisiana Consumer's League (LCL) filed its " Contentions of the Louisiana Consumer's League, Inc. ".1/
The NRC Staff's position on these cor..?tions is set forth below.
II. STAFF'S POSITIOd ON CONTENTIONS A.
Reouirements for Valid Contentions As noted above,10 CFR s 2.714(b) requires that the cententions which the intervenor seeks to have litigated be filed along with the bases set forth 2232 330
-1/
By its order dated March 8,1979, the Board scheduled a 10 CFR 5 2.751a special prehearing conference for' April 26, 1979.
7906070175
. determine admissibility, a licensing board is not to reach the merits of the contentions. Juke Power Co. (Amendment to Materials License SNAl-1773-Transportation of Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station, ALAB-528 (February 26, 1979); Peach Bottom, suora, at 8 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 c.therwise objectionable. Oconee-McGuire, supra. However, the Appeal Board has twice indicated that special
, care should be taken at the operting license stage, when a hearing is not mandatory, to assure that asserted contentions raise issues that are 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).
B.
Contentions Contention 1 The applicant has not provided adequate criteria for redundancy, recording, qualification and testing of post acci-dent and incident monitoring. This question was originally raised in section 7.3 of the Waterford III SER and has not been resolved by the applicant in subsequent filings. The applicant has, therefore, not provided information required by the SER.
2232 331
. sippi River and commonly carries cargoes which are flammable and/or explosive. Past accidents in the area have involved five or more railroad cars, a distance easily sufficie'nt to impact both proposed transmission lines. In addition, the applicant's switching station is unprotected and located in an area which could easily be impacted by railroad accidents.
The NRC Staff believes that this contention is set forth with sufficient basis and specificity to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR S 2.714.
Therefore, this contention should be accepted.
Contention 3 The applicant has not demonstrated that it can control activities in the exclusion area as is required by 10 CFR 100.3 in that:
A.
It cannot control oil and gas drilling activity in the Mississippi River.
B.
It cannot control surface activities on the Mississippi River. Its agreement with the U.S. Coast Guard leaves the determination of the method and extent of control to be exercised to that agency.
C.
The statutory authority relied upon by the U.S.
Coast Guard in its agreement with the applicant 2232 332
T
. Contention 5 The applicant has not evaluated the probability and consequences, to members of LCL and the general public, of accidents more serious than the design basis accident (class 9 accident), like the accident which occurred recently at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant in Pennsylvania.
Contention 7 The applicant has made no provision for the removal of a hydrogen gas bubble from the reactor vessel during an accident sequence like the one that occurred at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant in Pennsylvania.
Both the Commission's Appeal Board / as well as the courts of appeal /
2 3
have held that the possibility of a Class 9 accident is so remote that it
! Duke Power Company (Catawba Units 1 and 2), ALAB-355, 4 NRC 397, 415-16 (1975); Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-226, 8 AEC 381, 407 (1974); Lone Island Lightine Company (Shoreham Station), ALAB-156, 6 AEC 831, 833-36 (1973),
Wisconsin Electric Power Comoany (Point Beach, Unit 2), ALAB-137, 6 AEC 491, 5021973), Duke Power Comoany (McGuire Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-128, 6 ALC 399 (1973), affirming LBP-73-7, 6 AEC 92, I?2; Consumers Power Comoany (Midland, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-123, 6 AEC '31, 345-48 (1973). See also Long Island Lichtine Comoany (Jamesport Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-77-21, 5 NRC 684, 690 (1977).
--3/
Carolina Environmental Study Group v. United States, 510 F.2d 796, 799-800 (D.C. Cir.1975); Porter County Chaoter v. AEC, F.2d 1011, 1017-18 (7th Cir.), certiorari denied, 429 U.S. 945 (1976). Cf. Ecoloc;y,
Action v. AEC, 492 F.2d 998,1002 (2nd Cir.1974).
2232
')33
_9_
Contention 6 The applicant has not evaluated the effect of a premature shutdown of the emergency core cooling sfstem due to operator error during a loss of coolant accident.
The Staff believes that this contention meets the minimum requirements of 10 CFR 3 714 and, therefore, should be accepted.
In summary, the Staff believes LCL's contentions 2, 3, 4 and 6 should be accepted and contention 1 rejected. The Staff believes that a ruling on contentions 5 and 7 should be withheld pending negotiations of the Petitioners and the parties.
Res1.ectfully submitted, f
}{
C P
Hen J. McGurren Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 25th day of April,1979 2232 ;34
.