ML19309D241
| ML19309D241 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308 |
| Issue date: | 04/04/1980 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004100151 | |
| Download: ML19309D241 (14) | |
Text
e -o',
April 4, 1980 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
)
(Renewal of SNM-1265)
(GE Morris Operation Spent
)
Fuel Storage Facility)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO SECOND SET OF AMENDED CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE OF ILLIN0IS I.
Introduction In a prehearing conference convened on February 29, 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the Board) provided the Intervenors in this proceeding, the State of Illinois (Illinois or Intervenor) and Rorem g al., with the 2
opportunity to further amend their proposed contentions to cure certain deficiencies noted by the Board and the parties in their proposed conten-tions (Tr.136). The Board allowed a period of twenty days for this purpose, i.e., until March 20, 1980 and provided a fifteen day period (from March 20, 1980) for the other parties to respond.
(Tr. 136, 137). On March 20, 1980, Illinois filed a pleading entitled " People of State of Illinois Second Set of Amended Contentions." According to this pleading, the amended conten-14,1980l except as noted in 1
tions of Illinois remain as filed on February
_1]
See Illinois' " Amended Contentions," dated February 14, 1980 and "NRC i
. Staff's Statement of Position On Amended Contentions of The State of Illinois," da ted February 28,1980 (hereaf ter " Statement of Position").
f l
b 8064100 % l
e the pleading, in which Illinois amends contentions 1, 2, 6, 7 and 10.
In addition, this pleading sets forth Illinois' suggested " Standards for Review of Contentions" and seeks reconsideration of Illinois' Motion To Stay Pro-ceedings, which was filed by Illinois on February 15, 1980, and denied by the Board at the prehearing conference (Tr. 32).
For the reasons set forth below, the NRC Staff opposes contentions 1(c), 6, 7(a) and 7(b) and 10, as amended. The Staff's position with respect to Illinois' other proposed contentions remains unchanged. The Staff urges that Illinois' request for reconsideration of Illinois' Motion To Stay Proceedings be denied.
Pursuant to the Board's invitation to the parties to provide suggestions regarding discovery (Tr. 141-142), the Staff has set forth a proposed schedule for disc ove ry.
II.
Discussion Amendment to Contention 1 The crux of contention 1, as stated in Illinois' first set of amended con-tentions, is that the Applicant's Consolidated Safety Analysis Report (CSAR) does not adequately describe and analyze the risk of "all credible accidents and the. consequences thereof" including the categories of accidents in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
The response of the Staff to this contention is set forth on pp. 2-10 of the Staff's Statement of Position and at the prehearing conference (Tr. 57-58).
Illinois has amended contention 1 by making revisions to paragraph I line 4 to correctly state the applicable regulations and to subparagraph (a),
I 3-line 1 correcting a typographical error. The Staff has no objection to these revisions.
However, Illinois has provided no additional bases or arguments in support of contention 1(a).
Under this circumstance, the Staff continues to oppose admission of contention 1(a) for the reasons stated at the prehearing conference and in the Staff Statement of Position.
Illinois also deletes subparagraph (c) and substitutes the following pa ragraph:
"The risks and consequences of the release of radioactive elements in excess of Part 20 regulations as a result of any of the following accidental occurrences at the Morris facility:
a tornado-related incident, including the consequences of an accident caused by a tornado impelled missile; a loss of coolant accident, alone and in conjunction with an accident which has caused'a rif t in the building structure; earthquake related accidents; and sabotage related accidents not analyzej in NEDM-20682."
The Staff opposes admission of subparagraph (c) of this contention, as further amended, on the grounds that it lacks basis and is entirely s pecula tive.
Illinois' amended subparagraph (c) provides greater specificity as to the types of accidents which Illinois asserts may result in releases of radio-active elements in excess of Part 20 regulations and which the CSAR allegedly fails to discuss adequately.
However, Illinois assumes that all of these accidents or incidents would necessarily result in releases of radioactive elements in excess of the standards for radiation protection set forth in 10 CFR Part 20, but does not of fer any basis for this assumption.
In addi-tion, although the contention alleges that the CSAR does not adequately
r
_4_
describe these type of accidents, Illinois does not specify wry the CSAR discussion of these accidents is inadequate.
In this regard, the Staff notes that the CSAR, 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 deficien-cies nor indicate the basis for its belief that such deficiencies exist.
In addition, Illinois does not specify the types of tornadc-related accidents which were not considered in the CSAR.
Illinois offers no basis for the second type of accident, " loss of coolant accident," listed by Illinois in subparagraph (c), as amended. The design of the pool, which is below grade to preclude this type of accident is discussed in CSAR 5 8.3.
Fu rther, loss of cooling and/or basin rupture are discussed in CSAR 55 8.2 and 8.3.1, respectively.
Illinois has not indicated where the CSAR is inadequate nor the mechanism whereby such an accident could occur.
Illinois also fails to specify in what way the CSAR discussion of " earth-quake ralated [ sic] accidents" is inadequate.
Illinois does not indicate the basis for the assertion implicit in this contention that the facility is not secure from earthquakes. The Staff notes that the Applicant's CSAR, Chapter 3.7 and CSAR, Appendix B, give extensive consideration to the geology and seismology of the GE Morris site.
There is discussion in Section 3.7.5 l
l l
4 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. According to the Staff's SER:
"The basin facilities have been designed to resist seismic phe ;omena under n,aximum earthquake conditions and the storage-basket-grid complex has undergone rigorous seismic shock testing to demonstrate its reliability under earthquake con-ditions (M. J.
Rosenfield, et al., Seismic Shock Environment Test of Simulated Nuclear FueT Storage Basket. Department of the Anny Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Techni-cal 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
,dcsign basis earthquake."
(Emphasis added).
Staff SER,
- p. 20.
Illinois has affered no basis to call into question the Applicant's and Staff's conclusion that the GE Morris facility is secure from earthquakes.
The CSAR provides ample discussion and evaluation of these accidents to allow Illinois to particularize whatever concerns it has, if any, under sub-paragraph (c).
Despite this, Illinois fails to provide anything more than vague assertions without bases.
With respect to that part of the contention relating to sabotage, it is the Staff's view that Illinois has provided no basis for the allegation in subparagraph (c) that the GE Morris facility is not secure from acts of sabotage.
In addition, Illinois has not specified the particular acts of sabotage which allegedly pose a threat to the facility and which could
t conceivably result in accidents.
In this regard, the Staff notes that the GE Morris facility is subject to the requirements in 10 CFR 5 73.50 for physical protection of licensed activities and that the Staff has detennined that GE !! orris satisfies these requirements. To the extent that the conten-tion alleges that the physical security regulations in 10 CFR % 73.50 are invalid or inadequate, this contention is barred by 10 CFR 6 2.758.
Under 10 CFR 5 2.758, the Commission has withheld jurisdiction from a licensing board to entertain attacks on the validity of Commission regulations in 3
individual licensing proceedings, except in "special circumstances." P_og-mac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point fluclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 88-69 (1974).
10 CFR 9 2.758 sets out those special circumstances which an Intervenor must show to be applicable before
.a contention attacking the regula tions will be admissible.
Illinois has made no showing of special circumstances. Although Illinois cites "flEDM-20682" (General Electric Co. " Sabotage Analysis for Fuel Storage at Morris," flovem-ber 1,1974), Illinois does not state in what ways this document supports its contention or why the CSAR must analyze those accidents not analyzed in NEDfi-20682.
For the reasons stated above, the Staff opposes admission of amended con-tention1(c).
In the Staff's view, Illinois amendments to contention 1-have
- not cured the deficiencies noted by the Staff in its Statement of Position
.and by the Board and parties at the prehearing conference (Tr. 37-60).
.~
. Amendment to Contention 2 Illinois' contention 2 (first amended) alleges that the "CSAR does not provide adequate assessment of credible risks of sabotage related events and the consequences thereof."
In its amendment to this contention, Illinois adds the following paragraph:
"The ' Sabotage Analysis for Fuel Storage at Morris', NEDH-20682, November 1,1974,.is limited in that it does not prove statistically the ' unlikeliness' of sabotage events nor has it been updated to accommodate advances in the technology of explosives which could make sabotage a more likely event."
The Staff does not believe that citation of this document cures the defi-ciencies in contention 2 noted by the Staff in its Statement of Position, pp.11-12 and the deficiencies in this contention noted by the Board and the parties at the prehearing conference (Tr. 60-62).
In its amendment, Illinois has not satisfied the Board's direction that Illinois " point out as to how it [the physical security plan] is inadequate" (Tr. 62).
Illinois merely suggests that the GE Morris physical security plan is inadequate because NEDM-20682, the document cited by Illinois, does not " prove statistically the unlikeliness of sabotage events." Mere reference to the document cited by Illinois does not provide any bases to support Illinois allegation that the security plan is inadequate. To the extent that this contention alleges that the physical protection regulations in 10 CFR 5 73.50 are invalid or inadequate, this contention is barred by 10 CFR 6 2.758, except in "special circums tances. "
Illinois has not made any showing of "special circumstances."
In addition, Illinois does not specify what " sabotage events" must allegedly be considered.
In the Staff's view, this amendment to contention 2 is too
x x
' vague to allow a detemination whether further inquiry is warranted or to reasonably alert the other parties as to the matters they should address.
Accordingly, the Staff continues to oppose contention 2.
Amendment to Contention 6 Illinois has amended contention 6(c) to read as follows:
"There is no contingency plan to provide decommissioning of the Morris facility should an emergency, accident or other unforseen [ sic] event necessitate immediate and pemanent abandonment of the Morris site. CSAR % A.7.2.1."
In the earlier version of contention 6(c)
Illinois alleged that decommis-sioning plan in the CSAR is inadequate because "there is no contingency planning for emergency tennination and decommissioning." CSAR 6 A.7.2.1.
In the Staff's view, Illinois has not complied with the Board's direction that Illinois clarify this part of contention 6 (Tr. 86).
Illinois does not specify what " emergency, accident or other unforseen [ sic] event" night necessitate a contingency plan for decommissioning.
In addition, Illinois does not provide any basis for the assumption that the CSAR must contain such a contingency plan. The Staff continues to oppose contention 6(c) on the grounds that it is vague and lacking in basis.
In 'a note to this amendment, Illinois provides clarification as to the issue it seeks to raise in contention 6(d)(iv). According to Illinois, "the intent behind contention 6(d)(iv) is to litigate the issue of General Elec-tric's contingency planning if it is found to be the case that no offsite facilities are available when needed."
(Illinois cites Tr. 84-88).
Illinois stated at the prehearing conference that:
9-
"We are not attempting to litigate in this proceeding whether or not there will be an offsite facility available.
I am aware of the fact that a rulemaking is now in progress to detemine whether or not there will be a pemanent storage facility for that type of high level waste or other types of spent fuel disposal at a later date."
(Tr. 85).
"What the concern is here again is what they will do with this facility when it is no longer going to be used if there isn't any place to put it."
(Tr. 85).
For the reasons stated in the Staff's Statement of Position (pp.19-21) and at the prehearing conference (Tr. 86), the Staff continues to oppose admis-sion of this part of contention 6.
To the extent that the contention alleges that there are no offsite facilities for low level wastes, (Tr. 86), the contention is without basis.
There currently exist operating burial grounds for the disposal of low level wastes and Illinois has presented no basis for an assertion that low level waste disposal facilities will be unavailable in the future. The contention as clarified by Illinois, i.e., disposal of this facility when it is no longer going to be used, still involves a matter being considered in the rulemaking being conducted by the Comission on
" Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste".
Since contention 6(d)(iv) raises an issue which is the subject of rulemaking, it is not appropriate for consideration in an individual licensing proceeding.
_Am_endment to Contention 7 Illinois has amended contention 7 by setting forth three subparagraphs, (a),
(b) and (c).
Subparagraphs (a) and (b) merely restate the contention con-tained in fomer contention 7(a).
In the Staff's view, merely restating the contention, as Illinois has done, does not cure the deficiencies in this contention noted by the Staff in its Statement of Position (p. 22) and at o..
the prehearing conference (Tr. 88-90).
Accordingly, for the reasons previously stated the Staff continues to oppose the admission of contention 7, subpara-graphs (a) and (b), as amended.
In its amendrent to contention 7, Illinois repeats, verbatim, former subpara-graph (b) as new subparagraph (c) and cites the prehearing conference transcript.
The Staff stated in its Statement of Position, p. 22, that:
" Subject to clarification at the February 29, 1980 Prehearing Conference, the Staif believes contention 7(b) may be admissible on the grounds that it minimally satisfies the specificity andbasisrequirementsof10CFR62.714andraisesanisg" that is appropriate for consideration in this proceeding.-
"l_6/ For exarple, clarification appears to be required regarding 6
the statement that there is no reference to tests in the plan, since there are provisions for testing in the
" Radiological Emergency Plan for Morris Operation."
(NEDE-21894, June 1978), section 8.1."
The discussion of this contention at the prehearing conference (Tr. 93-96) indicates that Illinois has provided some clarification of this contention.
Apparently, Illinois' concern is that the infonnation in the emergency plan concerning tests is inadequate (Tr. 95) and Illinois is:
" interested in having (1) documentation of how tests will be carried out and performed by GE, and (2) documentation of the tests themselves as they are carried out..." (Tr. 95)
Based on this clarification, the Staff supports admission of subparagraph (c) of contention 7 as an issue in controversy in this proceeding, i
_ Amendment to Contention 10 Illinois has amended this contention to correct an error noted by the Staff on line 2 (change 0.29 to 0.29.) However, Illinois has provided no additional bases or argurents in support of contention 10.
Under this circumstance, the Staff's position in opposition to admission of contention 10 for the reasons stated at the prehearing conference (Tr. 100-102) and in the Staff's Staterent of Position (pp. 25-26) remains unchanged.
III. Standards for Review of Contentions On pp. 5-8 of its pleading, Illinois suggests " standards for review of contentions." The Staff has previously discussed " General Principles Govern-ing Adr.ission of Contentions," which the Staff believes govern admission of Illinois' contentions.
See "NRC STAFF STATEMENT OF POSITION ON THE CONTEN-TIONS OF THE STATE OF ILLIN0IS," dated November 20, 1979.
The Staff will not repeat that discussion here.
However, the Staff is compelled to address the implication on p. 7 of Illinois' pleading that the Staff is seeking to use the prehearing conference "as a means of circumventing the summary dis-position process."
Illinois' implied assertion is without merit or basis.
The Staff's position, as consistently articulated, has been that the purpose of the prehearing conference is to allow the parties to present to the Board 4
their position as to the admissibility of the contentions proposed by the Intervenors.
The Staff recognizes (see Statement of Position, November 20, 1979, p. 4) that in examining contentions and the basis therefore to detennine admissibility, a licensing board need not reach the merits of the contentions.
However, as the Staff noted in its discussion of the principles governing admissibility of contentions:
"It is incumbent upon this Intervenor to set forth conten-tions, which, on their face, are sufficitntly detailed and specific to demonstrate that the issues are admissible and that further inquiry is warranted, and to put the other parties on notice of what they must address." Statement of Position, November 20, 1979. n.
4 IV.
Illinois' Request for Reconsideration of its Motion to Stay Proceedinos Should Be Denied Illinois reouests that the Board reconsider Illinois' " Motion to Stay These Proceedings," which was denied by the Board at the prehearing conference on Februa ry 20, 1980 (Tr. 32).
In support of its request, Illinois relies upon the sane grounds set forth in its Motion to Stay. The' Staff opposed that notion for the reasnns stated in "NPC STAFF ANSWER TO ILLINOIS' MOTION TO TO DISMISS PROCEEDING AND MOTION TO STAY," dated February 28, 1980 (see pp. 9-18) and at the prehearing conference (Tr. 26,27,31,32).
Since Illinois asserts no new grounds in support of its motion, the Staff con-tinues to oppose the rnotion.
However, the Staf f would note that, contrary to the statement on p. 8 of Illinois' pleading, the Staff has not utilized the " lack of these regulations" [ Proposed Part 72 to 10 CFR] in its response to contention 10 to assert that the issue of adequacy of the seismic design of GE Morris is beyond the scope of hearing.
The Staff's position is that any issue (such as Illinois' contention 10) raising compliance of GE Morris with proposed part 72 is beyond the scope of this proceeding.
Nor is it obvious to the Staff, as Illinois suggests on p. 8, that "the Board's rulings on the issues are going to be limited to the few rules that can be analogized by the Staff to pertain to this licensing and it is therefore very likely that many issues will not be properly aired at this time." As the Staff has
13 -
previously stated, Illinois fails to recognize that there are valid regula-tions in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, pursuant to which GE possesses a valid raterials license for GE Porris.
These regulations (and those in 10 CFR Part 51) provide the regulatory framework against which the license renewal application is evaluated.5/
Eased on the NRC Staff's answer to Illinois' Motion to Stay and as further explained at the prehearing conference and above, the Staff opposes Illinois' Motion to Stay and urges that the Board deny Illinois' request for recon-sideration.
V.
Di scove ry At the prehearing conference, the Board stated that when it rules on the adr.issibility of contentions, it will set forth a schedule for discovery for all the parties (Tr.141).
The Board indicated that when the parties respond 4
to the re-amended contentions, it would welcome any comments regarding what the parties envisage as to discovery (Tr.141).
In response to the Board's invitation, the Staff proposes the following schedule for discovery:
1.
a.
Staff's Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) - April 30 (See Tr. 35) b.
Staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) - May 30 (See Tr. 35) c.
Ruling By Licensing Board on Admissibility of Contentions - May 30
- 11. Completion of First Round Discovery Requests - June 30 2/
Of course, with regard to specific aspects of GE Morris operation, e.g., physical security protection, other regulatory provisions apply.
See 10 CFR Part 73.
c
.' III. Answers or Objections to First Round Requests - July 21 (See 10 CFR
$5 2.7406, 2.741)
IV.
Completion of Second Round Discovery Requests (limited to discovery clarifying answers received in first round) - August 1 V.
Answers to Second Round Discovery - August 20 VI. Motions for Summary Disposition - September 5 VII. Answers to Motions for Summary Disposition - September 25 (See 10 CFR l 2.749)
VII. Prehearing Conference To Rule on Notions for Summary Disposition and other matters set out in 10 CFR 9 2.752 - October IN VI.
Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the Staff opposes contentions 1(c), 2, 6(c),
7(a) and (b) and 10, as further amended. The Staff supports admission of contention 7(c). The Staff's position with respect to the admissibility of the other contentions proposed by Illinois remains unchanged (See Statement of Position, dated February 28,1980, p. 2). As stated above, the Staff urges that the Board deny Illinois' request for reconsideration of its motion to stay the proceedings.
Respectfully submitted, g6 bo ~ MDCNO Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff i
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland j
this 4th day of April,1980.
i i
l 3/
- Dates for Testimony and evidentiary hearing-to be detemined at pre-hearing conference proposed for October 14.
1