ML19309D250
| ML19309D250 | |
| 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 |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309D252 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004100164 | |
| Download: ML19309D250 (22) | |
Text
O' April 4, 1980 UtilTED STATES OF AMERICA fiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI0ff BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEf1SIf1G BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
GEf1ERAL ELECTRIC COMPAflY
)
Docket No. 70-1308
)
(Renewal of SNM-1265)
(GE Morris Operation Spent Fuel
)
Storage Facility)
)
NRC STAFF RESP 0flSE TO RE-AMENDED CONTENTI0flS OF RORB4, ET AL.
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 and Rorem, et al. (Intervenor) the opportunity to further amend their contentions to cure certain deficiencies noted by the Board and the parties in their contentions / (Tr.136).
The Board allowed l
a period of twenty days for this purpose, i.e., until March 20,1980, and provided a fif teen-day period (from March 20, 1980) for the other parties to respond (Tr. 136, 137).
In a document dated March 19, 1980, Intervenor filed 1/
The original contentions of Intervenor are contained in a " Petition for Leave to Intervene", dated May 23, 1979. The NRC Staff responded to the original contentions in "NRC Staff's Response to Petition for Leave to Intervene Jointly Filed By Rorem, et al. and Appleseed," dated June 14,1979 and "NRC' Staff Statement oTPosition on the Contentions of Bridget Rorem, et al. " dated November 20, 1979. At the prehearing conference on February 29, 1980, Rorem et al. filed an " Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene," containing amended contentions.
b l ( LL 8004100
"re-amended Contentions."U In its "re-amended contentions," Intervenor sets forth seven contentions.
For the reasons set forth below, the Staff believes that Contentions 1.B.,1.C., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6. and 7. should be denied.
The Staff supports admission of Contention 1. A. on the grounds that it minimally satisfies the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR 6 2.714 and raises an issue which is appropriate for consideration in this proceeding.
II. DISCUSSION Statement of Contention (1.)
"1.
Intervenors contend that under the present license held by General Electric, no account is taken of the possibility of an accident to the storage pools which might result in large releases of radio-active gases.
Intervenors further contend that such an accident is possible, due to earthquake, tornado, fire, flooding, acts of sabotage, acts of war, human error, or massive electrical power failure.
Intervenors contend that before a renewal license is issued, the following conditions should be met:
A.
There should exist a comprehensive evacuation plan for the area, including the whole of two large metropolitan areas to the northeast (Joliet) and to the southeast (Kinkakee) of the facility.
These plans should include detailed infonnation as to how hospitals, nursing homes, schools, and prisons are to be evacuated.
4
_2]
The Staff's copy of this document was not accompanied by a certificate of service and was not signed. The failure of Intervenor to serve the document and sign it contravenes 10 CFR QQ 2.701(b) and 2.708(c),
res pectively. The failure of Intervenor to sign the document contain-ing its "re-amended" contentions is grounds for striking it 10 CFR 6 2.708(c). However, the Staff believes that-this failure should be waived and a detennination on the admissibility of the contentions of Intervenor should be made on the basis of substantive rather than procedural grounds.
l l
B.
Hospitals within a 50-100 miie range of the facility should be equipped to handle large numbers of people exposed to radiation or contaminated by radiation. At present there is no hospital or other facility within such a distance which could take proper care of more than several such people.
C.
Applicant should take responsibility, both financial and otherwise, for infoming residents of the area that the possi-bility of such an accident does exist, and infoming them of evacuation plans and/or measures to be taken in case of a radio-active accident either at the facility or during transport of spent fuel to or from the facility.
D.
Applicant should take complete financial responsibility for formation of evacuation plans, for equipping hospitals and training personnel, and for maintenance of any equipment needed."
Staff Position The Staff supports admission of subparagraph A. of Contention 1. on the grounds that it minimally satisfies the specificity and basis requirements of 10 CFR % 2.714 and raises an issue that is appropriate for consideration in this proceeding.
However, support of admission of subparagraph A should not be construed as acceptance of the introductory paragraph.
As discussed below, there is no basis for the assertions set forth. The Staff opposes subparagraphs 1.B., C. and D. on the grounds that they are vague and lack basis.
Intervenor states that the basis for Contention 1 is expert testimony pre-sented at a criminal trial held in Grundy, Illinois beginning October 1, 19 79..
Intervenor cites expert testimony by "Dr. Leon Seren and Dr. Richard
~ Webb", whose credentials, Intervenor states, "are well known to NRC."
Intervenor further states that both witnesses testified that an accident at GE Morris "was possible (by such occurrences as earthquake, tornado,. fire, flooding, etc.) and that catastrophic consequences could occur."
("Re-l Amended Contentions, p.2).
i
4_
Contrary to Intervenor's assertion that under the present license held by General Electric Co., no account is taken of possibility of an accident to the storage pools which might result in large releases of radioactive gases, such accidents were considered in granting GE a license to operate GE Morris and are being considered in the license renewal application.
In this regard, see Safety Evaluation Report By The Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety Related to License Amendment for Material License No. SNM-1265, December 3,1975. Chapter 4.0 of that document discusses and evaluates
" Radiological Consequences of Postulated Accidents," including: " Cask Drop in Unloading Basin; Basin Leakage; Earthquake; Spent Fuel Basket Drop; Tornado Generated Missile and Criticality Incident. The Consolidated Safety Analysis Report (CSAR) submitted by Applicant as part of its license renewal application also considers such accidents. 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 Sec-tion 8.10.
" Loss of Fuel Basin Cooling" is discussed in CSAR 5 8.2.
A
" Loss-of-coolant accident" is discussed in the CSAR 5 8.3, and " Basin Liner Rupture Experience" is discussed in i 8.3.1. ~The 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 of the " Earth-quake Design Basis," which is also discussed in Chapter 4, " Design Criteria and Compliance." These' documents provides ample discussion and evaluation of these accidents to allow Intervenor to particularize whatever concerns it i
I
' has, if any, concerning these accidents.
Despite this, Intervenor fails to provide anything more than vague conclusory assertions.
In the Staff's view, Intervenor's statements regarding testimony presented at the trial in Grundy County do not provide any basis for Contention 1.B.
There is simply no basis presented for 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 gen-eralized, conclusory allegation, 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. Accordingly, this part of contention 1 must be rejected.
The Staff believes that Contention 1(C.) is too vague and lacking in basis to be accepted as an issue in controversy in this proceeding.
It is not clear whether Intervenor is asserting that Applicant should be required at this time to inform residents of the area that the possibility of accidents exists or whether, on the other hand, Applicants should be required as part of emergency planning, to infom residents of an accident in the event that an accident actually occurs.
In addition, Intervenor does not specify which accidents are the subject of its concern.
In the Staff's view, Interve -
has provided nothing more than vague conclusory assertions as to the respon-sibilities which it believes should be imposed on Applicant as part of emergency planning.
In this regard, the Staff notes that the Applicant was
required to submit 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 previously submitted general emergency plan, a physical security plan, and a plan for transportation emergencies, consti-tute the planning base for response to emergency situations. There is also information in the CSAR, Section 9.5 " Emergency Plan," which was considered by the Staff in its review of the adequacy of the GE Morris emergency plans.
The elenents in Section IV of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E were used in judging the adequacy of the emergency plans.
Section IV.D. of Appendix E requires that the emergency plan set forth " procedures for notifying, and agreements reached with local, state and Federal officials and agencies for the early warning of the public and for public evacuation or other protective measures should such warning, evacuation or other protective measures become necessary."
Intervenor has not specified why the provisions in the emergency plan for warning of the public are inadequate.
In addition, to the extent that Intervenor asserts that Applicant must assume responsibility for infonning the public of evacuation plans, the contention must be rejected, as representing no more than Intervenor's belief as to what applicable regulatory requirements ought to be.
Philadelphia Electric Co., et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2&3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974). Accordingly, this part of conten-tion 1 should be rejected.
-7 t
In the Staff's view, Contention 1(D.) must also be rejected.
As an asserted basis for this contention, Intervenor states that " General Electric Company, a corporation, is asking for the right to place the lives and livelihoods of area residents in jeopardy." This statement merely represents Intervenor's personal beliefs and does not provide adequate basis for a contention such as that proposed by Intervenor in subparagraph 1(D.).
A contention must be rejected where it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the Inter-venor's views as to what applicable policies ought to be.
Philadelphia Electric Co., supra.
Statenent of Contention (2.)
Intervenors contend that the General Electric Morris Operation is not secure from acts of sabotage, and that its current sabotage plan does not meet 10 CFR 73.
Staff Position t
The Staff opposes this contention on the grounds that it is vague and lacks specificity and basis and that it appears to be an impermissible attack on the Commission's regulations.
The contention is vague in that Intervenor has not specified the particular acts of sabotage which allegedly pose a threat to the facility.
Due to Intervenor's failure to specify the particular acts of sabotage, it is not possible for the other parties to determine what matters must be addressed.
It is too unbounded to be litigable.
8-It is the Staff's view that Intervenor has not provided adequate basis for the allegation that the GE Morris facility is not secure from acts of sabo-tage or that the GE Morris physical security plan does not meet the require-ments in 10 CFR Part 73.
In support of this Contention, Intervenor cites " Sabotage Analysis for Full Storage at Morris" and the "NRC's document known as the " Barrier Technology Handbook."3/
Intervenor states that the " Sabotage Analysis for Fuel Storage at Morris" (November 1,1974) does not contain " scientific proof at its bes t. " However, Intervenor does not state in what ways these documents suggest that the GE Morris physical security plan does not meet the require-ments of 10 CFR 6 73.50. To the extent that this contention alleges that the physical protection regulations in 10 CFR 5 73.50 are invalid or inade-quate, this contention is barred by 10 CFR i 2.758, except in "special cir-cumstances."
Intervenor has not made any showing of "special circumstance."
In the Staff's view contention 2 is too vague and lacking in basis. Accord-ingly, Contention 2_should be rejected.
Statement of Contention (3.)
Intervenors contend that renewal of the license should take into account the close proximity of the Morris Operation to Dresden Nuclear Station, noting in particular that:
3/
The " Barrier Technology Handbook" ( April 1978) is not "an NRC document,"
as Intervenor states.
It was prepared by Sandia Laboratories and sponsored by the U.S. Department of _ Energy.
- A.
Drusden Nuclear Station has a poor safety record.
B.
T;1ere is a concentration of spent fuel in the area; if an accident at one storage pool causes it to go critical, the other site could easily be affected.
C.
The G.E. facility may be affected by the attempted decontamination of Dresden Unit One.
Staff Position The Staff believes that this contention is not written with sufficient specificity and basis to satisfy 10 CFR 9 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.S/ 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 references 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 spent fuel capacity to its present level reflect that the GE Morris site is contiguous to the DNPS site.
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.
i
Intervenor provides 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 events at DNPS, such as those set forth in subparagraph (C.).
In support of this con-4 tention, Intervenor cites "The trial transcript mentioned in Contention 1."
However, Intervenor does not state how this transcript relates to the sub-ject of its contention, namely, the proximity of the Dresden site to GE Morris.
In support of this contention, Intervenor states that when the GE Morris facility was originally licensed, "no account was required to be taken of the possibility of a Class 9 accident, nor was it required during tha [ sic]
licensing of Dresden, Units 1, 2 and 3."
Intervenor cites the accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2 and the report of the Kemeny Canmission and the Rogovin report in support of its belief that " Class 9 accidents" must be considered in this proceeding.
1 With respect to the term " Class 9 accidents," the Staff notes that this term stems from a 1971 AEC proposal to place nuclear power plant accidents in nine categories to take account of such accidents in preparing environmental impact statements. The proposal was put forward for comment in a proposed
' Annex' to the Canaission's regulations implementing NEPA.
36 Fed. Reg.
22851-52 (December 1,1971). The nine categories in that ' Annex' were listed in increasing order of severity.
' Class 9' accidents involve sequences of postulated successive failure more severe than those postulated for the l
l
~.
design basis of protective systems and engineered safety features. 36 Fed.
Reg. 22852. The Annex concluded that, although the consequences of C1iss 9 accidents might be severe, the likelihood of such accidents was so small that nuclear power plants need not be designed to mitigate their consequences, and, as a result, discussion of such accidents in applicants' Environmental Reports or in Staff's Environmental Impact Statements was not required.
Id..
While the Annex has never been fonnally adopted by the Commission and is therefore not binding upon it - its guidance has of course been followed by the Commission's adjudicatory boards.E and it has withstood challenge in the courts.O The most recent expression of the Commission's policy regarding conside ation of Class 9 accidents is found in Offshore Power Systems, Inc. (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), ALAB-489, supra, CL1-79-9,10 NRC 257 (1979), ano Public Service Co. of Oklahoma, et al. (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2),
CL I-80-8, NRC (March 21, 1980), slip. og.
In ALAB-489, supra, the Appeal Board interpreted the proposed Annex A to Appendix D to 10 CFR 5/
See the decisions cited in Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Plants), ALAB-489, 8 NRC 194 (1978), at 210 fn. 52.
y See, e_.3., Hodder v. NRC, 589 F.2d 1115 (D.C. Cir.1978), cert. den g, U.S.
,100 S.Ct. 55 -(1979); Porter County Chapter of the IzaQ Walton League v. AEC, 533 F.2d 1011 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S.
858 (1976); Carolina Environmental Study Group v. United States, 510 F.2d 796 (D.C. Cir.1976).
4 Part 50 as setting forth the Commission's policy on Class 9 accidents.2/
Id.. a t 210.
It was noted that, though Appendix D had been deleted on the adoption of Part 51, the Annex had not been changed and, in fact, the Comnission at that time stated that Part 51 did not affect the Annex. J d,.
The Appeal Board also noted that the Annex was not an absolute bar to the discussion of Class 9 accidents.
It pointed to the previous decisions where rulings had been made that the discussion of Class 9 accidents would be permitted if an intervenor could show that, with respect to the reactor in l
question, there was a reasonable possibility of the occurrence of a particu-lar type of accident generically regarded as being in Class 9.
Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-156, 6 AEC 831, 836 (1973). The Appeal Board interpreted the proposed Annex to mean that neither Staff, applicants, nor adjudicatory boards could voluntarily consider Class 9 accidents absent the showing of a reasonable possibility of occurrence of a particular Class 9 accident at a particular plant.
Id Intervenor has failed here to make the requisite showing.
Intervenor merely states that a Class 9 accident could occur as a result of an earthquake, tornado, fire, etc. and refers to the " solvent used in decontamination [at Dresden], which 7/
The decision of the Canmission in Offshore Systems, CLI-79-9, supra and Public Service Co. of Oklahoma, et al., CLI-80-8, supra, confirmed that the Commission's policy on Class 9 accidents has not been set aside, but that the Commission intends to complete rulemaking and policy development as to Class 9 accidents at land-based reactors.
.' according to Intervenor, "may structurally weaken metal in pipes and bolts."8/
Intervenor also cites the accident that occurred at the Three Mile Island, Unit 2 facility.
In the Staff's view, Intervenor makes no showing that a particular Class 9 accident at either GE Morris or Dresden is a reasonable pos s ibi li ty.
In a recent decision, a Licensing Board held that general consideration of the consequences of Class 9 accidents at land-based reactors, merely on the asserted basis of the occurrence of the TMI-2 accident, is inconsistent with the Commission policy as expressed in the proposed Annex and in numerous Appeal Board decisions.
Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., et al. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 ar.d 2), LBP-79-29,10 NRC 586 (1979).
8/
Pursuant to the Board's request at the prehearing conference (Tr.125) the Staff provides the following infomation relating to the status of the proposed decontamination at Dresden:
Commonwealth Edison plans to decontaminate the Dresden 1 reactor coolant system to pennit certain maintenance to be accomplished. The decontami-nation would be done with a solvent, the composition of which is pro-prietary and which has been furnished to NRC under a confidentiality agreement. Commonwealth Edison proposed to undertake this action pursuant to 10.CFR 6 50.59(a)(1) and requested approval for this opera-tion some time ago (December 9,1974). On December 9, 1975, the NRC Staff gave pennission for the licensee to begin preparation for the opera tion.
An environmental evaluation was included in the NRC staff safety evalu-ation for the operation which was prepared in 1975 and which indicated there would be no environmental ef fect.
Since that time certain citizens have requested (under 10 CFR Q 2.206) that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared.
An evaluation based on current conditions is in preparation and will be issued in support of the decision to be made by the Director under 10 CFR Part 2.206.
The Comission has also asked for infonnation on the matter.
A response to its request is in preparation.
. Based upon the above guidance, this contention must be rejected to the extent that it seeks an exploration in this proceeding of the consequences of Class 9 accidents at either GE Morris or Dresden generally.
Statement of Contention (4.)
Intervenors contend that relicensing the facility, because of the possibility of an accident at the facility, or during transportation to it, would damage property values and the economic structure of the community.
I Staff Position The Staff opposes this contention because Intervenor has not provided any supporting facts or adequate basis and because it raises an issue which is not appropriate for consideration in the proceeding.
There is no indication as to the meaning of " economic structure" and " community."
In support of this contention, Intervenor states that the basis is " sheer common sense."
The Staff believes however, that it is incumbent upon this Intervenor to set forth in support of this contention more than a statement that " common sense" provides the basis.
Moreover, a contention such as this, " alleging economic hann absent an environmental relationship, is not cognizable by licensing boards."
Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-80,_,
NRC (March 10,1980) slip. op, p.43, citing Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418,1421 (1977).
l
(
For the reasons stated above, this contention nust be rejected.
Statement of Contention (5.)
I "Intervenors contend that mere compliance with NRC standards in no way 1
assures residents of the area that they will suffer no adverse ef fects from low-level radiation."
Staf f Position The Staff opposes admission of this contention on the ground that it lacks specificity and basis and is not appropriate for consideration here because it is the subject of rulemaking.
Intervenors have not identified the " adverse effects" mentioned in the con-tention. 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" fran low-level radiation.
With respect to emissions of radioactive material from GE Morris, it should be noted that the GE Morris facility is required to adhere to the standards in 10 CFR Part 20.
Intervenor's concern as expressed in this contention i
does not appear to be whether GE Morris will operate in compliance with NRC standards for radiation protection (10 CFR Part 20).
Rather, Intervenor is asserting that these standards are inadequate.
In support of its-contention that compliance with these standards does not insure that area residents-will suffer "no adverse effects from low-level radiation," Intervenor cites "the Heidelberg report." According to Intervenor, this report shows that.
l
"many of the calculations upon which the NRC bases its assessment of how much radiation is being absorbed by the population are false and mis-leading."9/
In this regard, the Commission has initiated a rulemaking pro-ceeding for the purpose of modernizing its radiation protection standards in 10 CFR Part 20.
According to the Commission's " Advance Notice of Proposed Rulema king:
"The primary purpose of the revision is to bring NRC radiation protection standards into accord with developments in radiation protection that have occurred since promulgation of Part 20 in its present fom in the late 1950's.
In a preliminary review of this matter, the NRC staff has identified a number of areas in which Part 20 might be improved. Before proceeding further with specific structural and substantive proposed changes, the NRC is seeking public comment. Of particular interest are public views on the areas so far identified by the staff as well as suggestions for further improvements and suggestions for alternative approaches for effecting needed improvements."
See " Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." 45 Fed. Reg.18023 (March 20,1980).
The notice further states that:
To provide for the earliest possible public participation in the development of proposed revisions, the NRC is seeking public comment and suggestions at this early stage in the process. Jd., at 18024.
4 The issue raised by Intervenor in this contention is now the subject of rulemaking.
Licensing Boards should not accept in individual licensing proceedings any contentions which are or are about to became the subject of general rulemaking. Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham), ALAB-99, 6 AEC 9/
This document, " Radiological Assessment of the WYHL Nuclear Power Plant" - Department of Environmental Protection, University of Heidelberg (May 1978), NRC Translation #520, (November 1978) alleges that the NRC dose models for radiation protection underestimate the doses individuals actually get.
.O.
53(1973) and ALAB-156, 6 AEC 831 (1973).
Accordingly, this contention should be rejected.1SI Statement of Contention (6.)
Intervenors contend that transport of spent fuel to the facility involves substantial risk of dispursal [ sic] of radioactive materials due to accident or sabotage.
Staff Position The Staff opposes this contention because it lacks specificity and basis and because it constitutes an impermissible challenge to the Commission's regula tions.
Intervenor does not specify what accidents or acts of sabotage allegedly create risks of dispersal of radioactivity due to transportation of spent fuel to or from GE Morris.
In addition, no basis whatsoever is presented for Intervenor's assertion that the transportation of spent fuel to GE Morris involves a risk of dispersal of radioactive material due to accident or sabotage.
In support of this contention, Intervenor merely state:
lof The Staff believes that the appropriate forum for the concerns raised by Intervenor in this contention is the rulemaking proceeding mentioned above.
The Notice of Rulemaking, supra, states that the comment period expires on June 18, 1980, and that written comments or suggestions should be submitted to:
Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch According to this notice, copies of comments received may be examined at the Conmission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC.
4 -
"Intervenors feel that the storage facility could not exist without transportation to it, and that it is a valid conten-tion for a hearing on relicensing."
The packaging and transportation of spent fuel is governed by 10 CFR Part 71,
" Packaging of Radioactive Material For Transport and Transportation of Radio-active Material Under Certain Conditions," and 10 CFR Part 73, " Physical Protection of Plants and Materials."
In addition, the regulations of the Department of Transportation (DOT) apply to transportation of spent fuel.
The containers used to ship spent fuel must meet the requirements in 10 CFR Pa rt 71.
The NRC has recently established interim requirements for the protection of spent fuel in transit fron sabotage. These requirements, in the form 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 coments, the Comission may reconsider or modify the interim rule as it deems necessary.
There is no basis presented for the contention that these regulations will not serve the purpose for which they were adopted with respect to the transportation of spent fuel to or from the GE Morris facility.11/
lif In addition, as noted by the Staff at the prehearing conference (Tr. 130-131),
there was a rulemaking proceeding on the environmental impacts of transporta-tion of spent fuel which resulted in Table S-4 (to 10 CFR Part 51) " Environ-mental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and From One Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor." This summary table quantifies the environmental effects associated with the transportation of nuclear fuel and waste and contains environmental impact values for a "model" light-water reactor.
This Table allows Applicants in their environmental reports, and the Commission in its environmental statements, to account for the environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste by using specific numeric values contained in the Table.
40 Fed. Rg.1005 (January 6,1975).
19 -
For the reasons stated above, this contention must be rejected.
Statement of Contention (7.)
Intervenors contend that a relicensing of the G.E. Morris Operation would facilitate a possible takeover of that operation by the federal government.
Staff Position The Staff opposes this contention on the grounds that it lacks basis, is speculative and raises an issue which is beyond the scope of this proceeding.
In support of this contention, Intervenor states that:
"the Department of Energy now admits that it is especially interested in the G.E. Morris facility, because it,qlone, of the three possible federal sites, has a license."E Intervenor's statement presumably refers to the Department of Energy's (DOE) spent fuel policy, announced in October 1977, under which the Federal Govern-ment would accept and take title to spent nuclear fuel.
To the Staff's knowledge, legislation to implement this policy (the proposed Spent Nuclear Fuel Act) has not yet been enacted and DOE's spent fuel policy has not been implemented.
In any event, the scope of this proceeding is limited to determining whether the license of the General Electric Co. to operate GE Morris should be renewed.
12/
It is not apparent which "three possible Federal sites" Intervernor is referring to, however, it is not correct that the GE Morris site is the only licensed nuclear waste storage site.
In addition to several licensed low-level waste storage sites there is another licensed spent fuel storage facility (Nuclear Fuel Services) in West Valley, New York s
site.
a.
e
. An issue concerning whether the Federal Government is interested in a " takeover" of the facility is beyond the scope of this proceeding. Any transfer of ownership or authority to operate the GE Morris facility would require an amendment to the facility license and be the subject of a separate licensing action.
For these reasons, this contention must be rejected.
III. DISCOVERY At the prehearing conference, the Board stated that when it rules on the admissibility of contentions, it will set forth a schedule for discovery for all the parties (Tr.141).
The Board indicated that when the parties respond to the re-amended contentions, it would welcome any comments regarding what 1
)
the parties envisage as to discovery (Tr.141).
In response to the Board's invitation, the Staff proposes the following schedule for discovery:
4 I.
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 II. Completion of First Round Discovery Requests - June 30 III. Answers or Objections to First Round Requests - July 21 (See 10 CFR 95 2.7406, 2.741)
,o.
O.
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 9 2.749)
VII. Prehearing Conference To Rule on Motions for Summary Disposition and other matters set out in 10 CFR 9 2.752 - October 1413/
IV.
C0flCLUSI0fl Based on the foregoing, the Staff opposes admission of Intervernor's con-ten tions 1.B., 1.C., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., and 7.
The Staff believes that contention 1.D. minimally satisfies the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR Q 2.714, raises an issue appropriate for consideration in this proceeding and should be admitted.
Respectfully submitted, lh6y4 044cu~- [?Lc L5' Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff i
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of April, 1980.
13/ Dates for Testimony and evidentiary hearing to be determined at pre-hearing conference proposed for October 14.
i
=.
)*.
A' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
I
)
CCiERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-1308
)
(Renewal of SNM-1265)
(CE Morris Operation Spent Fuel
)
Storage Facility)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO SECOND SET OF AMENDED CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE OF ILLIN0IS" and "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO RE-AMEN COMTENT10ns 0F 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 4
Commission's internal mail system, this 4th day of April, 1980:
1 Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq., Chairman Edward Firestone Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Legal Operation 1
3320 Estelle Terrace General Eletric Company Wheaton, tm 20906 175 Curtner Avenue Mail Code 822 Dr. Linda W. Little San Jose, CA 95125 5000 Hermitage Drive
. Raleigh, NC 27612 Mr. Everet t Jay Quigley 1
R.R. 1 Box 378 Dr. Forrest J. Remick Kankakee, IL 60901 305 East Hamilton Avenue State College, PA 16801 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Susan N. Sekuler.. Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comn.ission Dean llansell, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Attorney General J
188 West Randolph Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal i
Suite 2315 Panel (5)*
Chicago, IL' 60601 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Ronald Szvajkowski, Esq.
' Mat thew A. Rooney, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section (7)*
Mayer, Brown & Platt' Office of the Secretary 231 South LaSalle Street U.S. Nuclaar Regulatory Commission.
Chicago, IL 60604 Washington, DC 20555 Ms. Bridget-Little Rorem Es sex, IL.60935 NYL1)W t$$ t 1l&
Marjoiie Ulman Rothschild-Counsel:for NRC Staff
-