ML19309H659
| ML19309H659 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1980 |
| From: | Horin W, Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005130626 | |
| Download: ML19309H659 (33) | |
Text
April 10, 1980 800513064(,
Gu UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
BEFORE 2HE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
Docket No. 50-445 COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
(Application for "J
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Operating License)
AEPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF POSITIONS ON PROPOSED CASE CONTENTIONS Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. (Applicants) hereby submit a statement of their positions regarding the admissibility of contentions proposed by the Citzens Associ-ation for Sound Energy (CASE or Intervenor) in the captioned proceeding.
This statement is being submitted in accordance with the Board's Srder Scheduling a Prehearing Conference, 8
dated March 20, 1980.
The Applicants' positions are based on the wording of CASE's proposed contentions set forth in Intervenor's Supplement to Petition For Leave to Intervene a'nd Contentions dated May 7, 1979, as corrected (p. 21) on May 22, 1979. 1/
1/
The Applicants, NRC Staff, and CASE have negotiated for almost one year in an attempt to stipulate to wording and admissibility of CASE's proposed contentions.
These nego-tiations failed, and CASE has elected to retain the original wording of its contentions.
Nevertheless, we believe it would be helpful for the Board to receive the revised wording of CASE's contentions upon which the Applicants and Staff agreed.
This revised wording is attached hereto as Attachment A.
If the Board should admit any of CASE's contentions (a result which we oppose), we believe that the wording set forth in the Attachment A is preferrable to the wording in CASE's pleadings.
. Applicants have treated these filings as setting forth the sole bases for the proposed contentions.
Applicants' position on CASE's proposed contentions are discussed below.
I.
General Principles Regarding Admission of Proposed Contentions To be admitted in this proceeding, Intervenors' con-tentions must raise issues which fall within the scope of this proceeding as set forth in the Notice of Hearing, 44 Fed. Reg 47999 (August 16, 1979) and must comply with Com-mission regulations governing admission of contentions, 10 CFR S2.714(b), and Commission case law.
See, Northern s
States Power Company (Prairie Island, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 194 (1973), aff'd, BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
In particular, Section 2.714(b) of 10 CFR Part 2 requires that a petitioner to intervene must provide, along with a list of proposed contentions, the " bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity."
In explaining the reasons for this basis-for-contention requirement, the l
Appeal Board in the Peach Bottum proceeding articulated specific grounds for dismissing a proposed contention.
That Appeal Board found that a contention must not be admitted if:
1.
it is an " attack on applicable statutory requirements";
I
. 2.
it " challenges...the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process",
i.e.,
Commission regulations; 3.
it lacks the particularity to enable parties to know at least generally what they will have to defend, i.e.,
the issue must be concrete and litigable; 4.
it raises an issue "not proper for adjudi-cation in the particular proceeding" or i,
pertaining to the particular power plant; or 5.
it merely advances generalizations regarding a party's views of what applicable policies ought to be.
[ Philadelphia Electric Co., et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974)]
As discussed in Peach Bottom, supra the purpose of the basis requirement of 10 CFR S2.714(b) is to enable the parties to know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose.
While the basis need not consist of a detailing of the evidence offered in support thereof that basis must be identified with reasonable specificity.
Peach Bottom, supra; Mississippi Power & Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973).
"In the final analysis, there must be strict observance of'the requirements governing intervention, in order that the adjudicatory process is invoked only by those persons who have real interests at stake and who seek resolution of concrete issues," Peach Bottom, supra; Virginia Electric and Power Comoany (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-146, 6 AEC 631, 633 (1973).
Indeed, special care should be taken where a hearing is not necessary, as is the case at the operating license stage, to assure that proposed contentions 1
s
. raise issues that are clearly open to adjudication in this proceeding.
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Compan" (William H.
Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, ), ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8, 12 (1976).
Based upon the principles discussed above, Applicants have established their positions with regard to each contention proposed by CASE.
Applicants believe that a close examination of the contentions and their purported bases, as mandated by the Appeal Board in the Zimmer proceeding, supra, ALAB-305, clearly demonstrates that CASE has failed to set forth any contentions which warrant admission in this proceeding.
II.
Applicants Positions on CASE's Proposed Contentions Proposed Contention 1 The Applicant cannot be depended upon to adequately protect, either in the normal or the emergency operation of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant (CPSES), the health and safety of the public and the individuals represented by CASE, and should therefore not be allowed to operate the plant.
Applicants oppose admission of CASE Contention 1
' because thi c'ontention is vague and CASE has not set forth with reasonable specificity a basis for the contention, as required by 10 CFR S2.714(b).
CASE Contention 1 lacks the
{
particularity necessary for the parties to determine the specific issues CASE seeks to! litigate.
In support of the contention CASE merely statbs general allegations against Applicants based on proceedings in activities not related to
. the construction and/or operation of Comanche Peak.
Those proceedings involve alleged pollution control violations at certain lignite plants, an unrelated rate refund order, and an alleged " potential" for abuses in dealings between certain of the Applicants' operating companies and service companies. In each instance CASE has failed to demonstrate a factual or logical nexus between those allegations and the operation of Comanche Peak.
CASE also cites a letter from Harold Denton and John G. Davis of the NRC, dated December 6, 1978, which discusses NRC enforcement actions.
This letter was a general letter sent to numerous NRC licensees and applicants and was not, as CASE implies, an attempt by the NRC to focus on Comanche Peak.
Accordingly, CASE Contention 1 must be denied.
Proposed Contention 2 Because of new information available since the prepara-tion of the final environmental impact statement, prepared in connection with the construction permit which has been inadequately dealt with in the Environmental Report Operating License Stage (ER) submitted by the Applicants, Applicants must amend that report before the NRC can consider their request for an operating license, and when the new information is
, taken into adcount, a weighing of the costs and benefits of licensing Ehe ~ plant (cost / benefit analysis) to operara and the availability of alternatives necessitate the de...ul of the operating license.
J Applicants oppose admission of Contention 2 because it is vague and CASE. fails to set forth with reasonable specificity a basis for the contention, as required by 10 CFR S2.714(b).
CASE merely' cites WRC regulations concerning the Environmental Report-Operating License Stage without specifying any instances where Applicants' have not Y
. complied with those regulations.
CASE also fails to identify the "new information" which it contends would alter the cost / benefit ana.'.ysis for Comanche Peak.
In fact, Contention 2 appears to be merely an introduction to the remaining contentions in thht CASE states that the following contentions will demonstrate "specifically" how Applicants' have not satisifed NRC regulations.
Accordingly, CASE Contention 2 should be denied.
Proposed Contentions 3 and 4 3.
The requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and 10 CFR Part 51 have not been met in that the forecast of the need for power which the plant will supply, as contained in the Applicants' Environmental Report (ER), is inaccurate.
4.
The Environmental Report (ER) prepared by.the Applicants clearly indicates that there is not a legitimate need for the operation of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant (CPSES).
Applicants oppose admission of Contentions 3 and 4 because CASE has not set forth with reasonable specificity bases for the contentions, as required by 10 CFR S2.714(b), and the issue of need for power is not appropriately raised by CASE in this opera. ting license stage of the proceedings.
In
~ general, thA issue of need for power is more appropriately raised at the proceedings concerning issuance of the construc-tion permit.
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company et al.
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-6, 9 NRC 291, 303-4 (1979).
It i's well settled that the issue of need for power is generally not appropriate for considera-tion at the operating license stage absent a demonstration that significant new information has been developed after consideration of the issue during the construction permit review, Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-79-1, 9 NRC 73, 86 (1979), or there is "something about the case that suggests that a detailed review would produce some conclusions that would be of significance to the operating license decision."
Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, PRM-51-4, 45 Fed. Reg. 10492, 10494 (February 15, 1980).
With respect to Comanche Peak the need for the power to be generated by Comanche Peak was established o
by the Licenseing Board at the construction permit stage.
See, Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-74-75, 8 AEC 673, 689 (1974).
Consequently, because CASE does not raise any signflicant new information on this issue the contentions should be dismissed.
Furthermore, CASE's generalized statments set'forth to support the allegation that reserve margins are adequate through 1985 without Comanche Peak, and with respect to the allegations concerning the Applicants' demand and reserve figures in the Applicants' Environmental Report (OL Stage) ("ER(OL)"), lack the required specificity.
CASE fails to set forth any b$ sis to demonstrate that the l
l
'T " actual" demand figures it cites are significant and alter the need for power determination.
In fact, CASE fails even to contend that reserve margins are adequate beyond 1985, while Comanche Peak would be authorized to operate for 40 years upon issuance of the operating license.
In any event, Applicants' projected demand and reserve figures are not required to predict precisely what the actual figures will turn out to be.
It is accepted policy that "the most that can be required is that a forecast be a reasonable one in the light of what is ascertainable at the time made."
Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Genera-ting Station Unit 1), ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320, 328 (1978), aff'd per curiam, Mid-America Coalition for Energy Alternatives v.
NRC, 590 P.2d 356 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
Also, because some margin of error is unavoidable, Applicants' demand projections are not automatically suspect if they turn out to be "consec-vative",
i.e.,
"they tend to project future loads closer to the high than to the low end of the demand spectrum",
and indeed, such a res 11t is preferrable to underestimation of required generating capacity in light of the " serious" l
consequences if such capacity were ever to be insufficient to meet demand.
Duke Power Company (Catawbwa Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-355, 4 NRC 397, 410-411 (1976).
Lacking the required specificity and basis these contentions cannot be admitted.
Accordingly, CASE Contentions l
3 and 4 should be denied.
Proposed Contention 5.
The ER fails to adequately discuss and consider new information concerning alternatives available to the operation
~
of CPSES.
The Applicants oppose admission of Contention 5 because CASE has not set forth with reasonable specificity a basis to support the contention, as required by 10 CFR S2.714(b), and the issue of alternatives is not appropriately raised by CASE in this operating license stage.
Absent a demonstration that the issue was not adequately considered during or significant information has been developed after the construction permit review, the issue of alternatives should not be reexamined at the operating license stage.
Detroit Edison (Enrico Fermi) LBP-79-1, supra.
Significantly, CASE fails to cite any deficiencies in the consideration of alternatives at the construction permit stage, where the Licensing Board determined that none of the fuels considered is an appropriate alternative to Comanche Peak and that conservation of energy likewise is not an alternative.
Texas Utilities (Comanche Peak), LBP-74-75, supra at 689-90.
The hypothetical events which CASE sets forth do not provide an adequate basis for Contention 5, in that they are purely speculative and fall short of being significant new information which would warrant further examination of the issue at this stage in the pro'ceedings.
Also, the generalized statements with regard to alleged greater than expected
. supplies of alternative fuels are not supported and CASE fails to even attempt to show that this information would have any impact, let alone a significant impact, on the consideration already given to alternatives.
Accordingly, CASE Contention 5 should be denied.
Proposed Contention 6 Neither the Applicants nor the Staff have adequately considered certain cost elements which should be included in any cost / benefit analysis of the operation of CPSES, included in the Environmental Report.
Applicants oppose admission of Contention 6 because CASE has failed to set forth with reasonab1< specificity a basis to support the contention, as requirt by 10 CFR S2.714(b).
Each of the " cost elements" mentioned by CASE in its filings are discussed below.
With respect to the consideration of decommissioning costs, CASE has failed to identify any inadecuacies in Applicants' method of calcula-ting decommissionig costs or in considering them in the cost-benefit balance.
Merely stating that others have reached different results fails to reasonably specify a basis for challenging Applicants' figures or methodology.
Furthermore, the issue of decommissioning, including an examination of costs and funding alternatives, is being considered in a general Commission rulemaking.
- See, 43 Fed. Reg. 10370 (March 13, 1978).
Consequently, the issue is
~
not appropriate for consideration in contentions raised in i
. an individual licensing proceeding.
Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 85 (1974).
Also, as a purported basis for Contention 6 CASE merely speculates that the cost-benefit balance would change if costs associated with correcting the Unit #2 pressure vessel are considered.
This is not an adequate basis for admission of the contention.
In addition, the issue of fuel costs over the life of the plant raised by CASE is not supported by a reasonably specific basis.
CASE generally challenges Applicants' fuel cost figures but does not specify in what way those estimates are inadequate.
The principaf arguments raised by CASE with regard to uranium fuel supply are speculative and lack any factual support.
With respect to CASE's allegations regarding long-term waste storage and/or disposal, that issue is one more appropriately raised on a generic basis than in an individual licensing proceeding.
The Commissi.on has commenced a rulemaking 'that will consider the issues of availability, egonomic feasibility and safety of a waste repository for waste disposal as well as the safety of spent fuel storage at nuclear facilities, if necessary, until such a waste repository is available (i.e., long-term).
44 Fed. Reg. 61372 (October 25, 1979).
In fact, the Commission has determined that during this rulemaking the issues considered therein i
should not be addressed in individual licensing proceedings.
44 Fed. Reg. 61373 (October 25, 1979).
In that CASE appears to raise precisely these issues, it is inadmissable in this proceeding.
Douglas Point, ALAB-218, supra, 8 AEC at 85.
In any event, there is also an inadequate basis for' admitting this portion of the contention. Accordingly, CASE Contention 6 should be denied.
Proposed Contention 7 Neither the Applicants nor the Staff have adequately considered the costs in terms of health as well as the economic costs of a possible accident in the on-site storage of spent fuel.
Applicants oppose admission of Contention 7 because it raises issues proscribed from consideration in indiv dual reactor licensing proceedings, and its purported bases are speculative and lack reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR 52.714(b).
CASE fails to set forth with particularity any basis for alleging that a spent fuel pool (SFP) accident (of the kind which could cause the adverse effects allegedly postulated in West German draft Report 290) is likely to
' occur, or eied could occur at CPSES.
CASE merely concludes thht " sabotage, tornadoes and earthquakes" are " mechanisms" that could cause a "SFP meltdown".
No further explanation is proferred.
In any event, the draft West German Report 290, upon which CASE relies has been repudiated by its authors in a subsequent report which contains the conclusion i
. that "a melt accident is out of the question for the fuel element pool."
In other words, the report relied on by CASE no longer represents the views of the agency which prepared it.
This report is not, therefore, an adequate basis to admit Contention 5.
Furthermore, as the Licensing Board found in Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-80 __, 11 NRC (March 10, 1980) slip op. at 2, to the extent that Intervenors postulate that a reactor meltdown or any other Class 9 accident might precipitate a SFP meltdown, reliance on West German Report 290 is unacceptable.
The Commission has proscribed considera-tion of the consequences of Class 9 accidents in individual licensing proceedings.
Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), CLI-79-9, 10 NRC 257 (1979), and intends to initiate a rulemaking proceeding on Class 9 accidents, which precludes consideration of this aspect of Contention 7 in this proceeding.
See, Public Service Company of Oklahoma et al. (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-B, NRC (March 21, 1980); See generally, Do'uglas Point, ALAB-218, supra, 8 AEC at 85.
l Also, CASE's reliance on the report, SAND-77-1371, lacks the specificity required by Commission regulations and fails to particularize CASE's.. concerns sufficiently to 1
. determine the issues CASE seeks to raise.
Generalized statements that the report " indicates significant dangers" from a SFP accident and " supports many of the findings" of West German Report 290 fall far short of the reasonable specificity required by 10 CFR S2.714(b).
In addition, the brief discussion of the "possible" storage of spent fuel in high density racks is speculative and without basis.
This is also an inadequate basis to support admission of this contention.
Finally, with respect to CASE's general allega-tio'ns of inadequacies in Applicants' consideration of SFP accidents, there is no explanation whatever of what accident sequences CASE believes should be considered and whether those accidents are at all likely to occur at Comanche Peak.
Again, this is an inadequate basis for the contention and CASE does not meet the basis and specificity requirements of 10 CFR S2.714(b).
Accordingly, CASE Contention 7 should be denied.
Procosed Contention 8 The ER fails to analyze the probability of and potential
' costs in tdrms of health and dollars of a Class 9 accident.
Applicants oppose admission of CASE Contention 8 because it raises an issue which is proscribed from consideration in individual licensing cases and is about to become the issue of a general rulemaking.
Consideration of the consequences of Class 9 accidents in individual licensing proceedings 1
i
. for land-based nuclear power reactors is proscribed by Commission policy.
In Offshore Power Systems / Floating Nuclear Plants), CLI-79-9, 10 NRC 257 (1979), the Commission retained the gresent policy proscribing evaluation of Class 9 accidents at land-based reactors.
Furthermore, the Commission determined that the rulemaking proceeding on Class 9 accidents should be completed before further con-sideration of the issue in individual licensing cases.
The Commission stated:
It is neither necessary er appropriate for us to employ this particular adjudicatory proceeding to resolve the generic issue of consideration of Class 9 accidents at land-based i
reactors.
Such a generic action is more properly and effectively done through rulemaking pro-ceedings...Therefore, we are not today eipressing any views on the question of environmental con-sideration of Class 9 accidents at land-based reactors.
Id. at 262.
[ Offshore Power Systems, supra, 10 NRC at 262.
(Emphasis added.)]
Consequently, it would not be appropriate to admit CASE Contention t in light of the Commission's determination of Orfshore Power Systems, CLI-79-9, supra, and the upcoming
~
rulemaking proceeding on the issue.
Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-80 __,
NRC slip oo. at 2-3 (March 10, 1980); See also, Public Service Company of Oklahoma et al.
i (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-8, __ NRC (March 21, 1980).
~
- In any event, CASE's reliance on the events at Three Mile Island and the Commission's rejection of certain findings of Wash-1400 as evidence that the probability of Class 9 accidents is not as low as previously contemplated and should therefore be considered in this proceeding is c
misplaced.
Both of these bases for challenging the policy regarding Class 9 accidents have been dismissed in individual licensing proceedings and should be dismissed in the instant case also.
The Licensing Board in Pennsylvania Power &
Light Company (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-6, 9 NRC 291 (1979) notes that "the policy is in no manner... premised upon the results of WASH-1400" and further states that "unless and until repudiated by the Commission, the policy is binding on (the Board]."
Id. at 324.
And the same Licensing Board later rejected a general a
contention seeking to have Class 9 accidents considered in light of the events at TMI.
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company (Susquehana Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-79-29, 20 NRC 586, 591 (1979).
Because CASE's Contention 8,is a similar general Class 9 contention, it must be rejected.
A( nordingly, CASE Contention 8 should be denied.
. Proposed Contentions 9 and 17 9.
Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has adequately considered the health effects of low-level radiation on the population surrounding CPSES in the cost / benefit analysis required in the ER.
17.
Applicants have not shown that the operation of Comanche Peak nuclear plant would not be inimical to the common defense and security and to the health and safety T
of the public, as required by 10 CFR 50.57(a)(6).
The information set forth by CASE in support of Con-tentions 9 and 17 does not demonstrate or even allege that Comanche Peak will not meet the limtations governing routine emissions of radioactive effluents, as set forth in the Commission's regulations at 10 CFR 550.34a and 50.36a, and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Thus, to the extent.that i
the contentions question the acceptability of effluent releases in compliance with Appendix I, it is a proscribed challenge to that regulation.
In any event, the contentions are vague and lacking in supporting basis, and should be denied for this reason alone.
If the Board should conclude that Contentions 9 and 17 meet the requirments of 10 CFR S2.714 (a result which we oppose), we submit that the Board should defer ruling on the admissibility of Contentions 9 and 17 pending resolution by the Commission of the following question certified to it by the Appeal Board in Public Service Company of Oklahoma l
. (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-573, 10 NRC __
(December 7, 1979), slip og. at 29:
"Where routine radioactive emissions from a nuclear powerplant will be kept 'as low as is reasonably achievable' in accordance with Appendix I, is litigation of the health effects of those emissions in an adjudicatory proceeding involving initial licensing barred by 10 CFR S2.758 as an impermissible attack on Commission regulations?"
The Commission has accepted this question on certifica-tion and has requested that all parties file briefs by April 7, 1980 and interested persons file amicus briefs by the same date.
Applicants have filed an amicus brief in that proceeding.
Because CASE Contentions 9 and 17 appear to raise issues chat will be addressed by the Commission in its consideration of the certified question in the Black Fox proceeding, Applicants believe it would be appropriate to defer ruling on the admissilbility of Contentions 9 and 17 until the Commission issues its opinion therein.
The Board should note that at least one other licensing board deferred ruling on asimilar contention on this basis.
See, Houston Li'hting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating g
Station, Unit 1), LBP-80
_1 11 NRC (March 10, 1980),
slip oo. at 74.
l l
l
. Proposed Contention 10 Neither the Applicants nor the Staft have adequately considered the potential economic effects of accidents occuring in light water reactors located elsewhere in the United States which are similar in design to those of CPSES.
Applicants oppose admission of CASE Contention 10 because it is speculative and not supported by a reasonably specific basis as required by 10 CFR S 2.714(b).
As a basis for this contention CASE simply alleges that the Three Mile Island accident demonstrates that the economic conse-quences of such an accident in teems of "down time" must be taken into account in the Comanche Peak cost-benefit analysis because reactors similar in design to Comanche Peak could have an accident that apparently would require Comanche Peak to be shut down for unspecified repairs and for an unspecified time.
CASE's explanation fails to provide any logical or factual nexus between the accident at Three Mile Island, which is a Babcock and Wilcox reactor and the probability of an accident at a plant similar to the Westing-house reactor.at Comanche Peak.
By n'ot specifying a mganingful connection between the Three Mile Island accident and Comanche Peak, CASE fails to provide a reasonably specific basis for Contention 10.
In any event, the contention should be dismissed as being purely speculative, and as not raising any matter which is related to or required by a NRC regulation.
CASE fails to identify any information which could support a finding that there is a reasonable probability that Comanche Peak could experience an accident which could cause the speculated " economic effects."
Because, no similar accident I
at Westinghouse reactors is cited or postulated by CASE it would be merely a fishing exercise to speculate on accidents which could cause the consequences CASE hypothesizes.
- Also, CASE does not even allege that such a consideration as is raised in the contention is required by NRC regulations.
Accordingly, CASE Contention 10 should be denied.
Proposed Contention 11 The Applicants have projected a useful life of CPSES as being 30 to 40 years for :arposes of the cost / benefit analysis, while in reality new factors indicate that CPSES will have a much shorter life.
Applicants oppose admission of Contention 11 because CASE has failed to set forth with reasonable specificity a basis to support the contention, as required by 10 CFR S2.714(b).
CASE merely concludes as a purported basis that
" cumulative radiation effects" on the " plant" make it likely
.that the plan't will have a shorter than projected useful lif e.
CASE argues that the cost-benefit analysis is therefore inadequate.
As a purported basis, CASE cites the alleged statements by an unidentified person said to be one of Applicants' personnel that Comanche Peak would not be required
" longer than 20 years".
While this statement is itself vague
. and speculative, CASE does not identify the person to enable an examination of the statement.
Surely CASE must be required to provide more basis than the statements of some
" phantom" witness.
And even if CASE had identified the person, there is no basis set forth which identifies the
" economic incentives" CASE claims will cause Comanche Peak to be shut down at an earlier time than at the end of the presently anticipated useful life.
Nor does CASE identify how the cost-benefit analysis would be changed from supporting operation of CPSES.
Accordingly, CASE Contention 11 should be denied.
Procosed Contentions 12, 13, 14 and 15 12.
In connection with the issuance of an operating license for CPSES, regulations of the NRC require the following with respect to emergency plans:
10 CFR Appendix E to Part 50 requires that each appli-cant for an operating license include in its final safety analysis report (FSAR) plans for coping with emergencies, wnich report must contain the following:
contacts and arrangements made or to be made with local, state and federal government agencies with responsibility for coping with emergencies including identification of the principal agencies; measures to be taken in the event of an accident within and outside of the site boundary to protect health and safety and prevent damage to property and expected response in"the event of emergency of offsite agencies; training program for employees and other persons not employees of the licensee whose services may be required in coping with an emergency.
13.
Neither the Applicants nor the Staff have ade-quately considered the need and the possibilities for evacuation of the Dallas / Fort Worth area in the event of a major accient at CPSES.
I 14.
Neither the Applicants nor the Staff have ade-I quately considered the prob 1cm of emergency treatment and transportation which would
.N necessary in the event of a I
major accident affecting the area immediately surrounding the plant.
l l
l
. 15.
Adequate plans for testing by periodic drills of emergency plans and provisions-for participation in the drills by persons whose assistance may be needed other than the employets of the Applicant have not been formulated.
Applicants oppose admission of Contentions 12, 13, 14 and 15 because CASE has failed to set forth with reasonable specificity bases for the contentions, as required by 10 i
CFR S2.714(b).
CASE simply asserts that there are no procedures or inadequate procedures established by Applicants in the FSAR with re.tpect to the measures identified in the contentions. However, each of the items raised by CASE are addressed in the Applicants' FSAR, Section 13 Appendix A, and CASE fails to identify the inadequacies with which it is concerned.
In fact, CASE has failed to set forth any bases for finding that any of the emergency planning actions it identifies are not adequately dealt with by the Applicants.
CASE does not, therefore, satisfy the basis and specifity requirements of 10 CFR S2.714(b).
Accordingly, CASE Conten-tions 12, 13, 14 and 15 should be denied.
Prooosed Centention 16 The requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, have not been met in that the Applicants are not financially qualified to construct [ operate] the proposed facility.
Applicants oppose admission of CASE Contention 16 because, as originally worded, the contention raises an issue that is not appropriate for considera. tion at the operating license stage, and as reworded is an untimely filed contention.
CASE changed the wording of this contention after the
. a deadline for submitting its contentions prior to the first prehearing conference.
10 CFR S2.714.
As originally worded the contention was concerned only with the Applicants' financial qualifications to " construct" Comanche Peak.
This issue is clearly not appropriate for consideration at the operating license stage and should not be admitted in this proceeding.
See Fermi, LBP-79-1, supra.
Subsequently, CASE changed the wording of the contention to apply to the Applicants' financial qualifications to operate Comanche Peak.
As such this is an untimely filed contention and on this basis alone should be denied.
In any event, if the Board considers Contention 16 as
)
revised by CASE (i.e.,
to appl'1 to the Applicants' financial qualifications to operate Comanche Peak), Applicants oppose admission of the contention because CASE has not set forth with reasonable specificity a basis in support of the contention, as required by 10 CFR S2.714(b).
The information set forth in support of Contention 16 as reworded by CASE is vague, lacks a factual or logical nexus to the Applicants' financial qualifications to operate Comanche Peak, and is purely speculative.
A reference to a statement made in connection with a filing for a rate increase by Dallas Power & Light Co. is vague and lacks any showing of a nexus to the Applicants' fina5cial qualfications to operate Comanche Peak.
The discussion of rate proceedings involving I
L
. Applicants fails to provide any factual nexus between those proceedings and the financial qualifications of the Applicants-to operate Comanche Peak.
The reference to a refund order and to the elimination of a fuel adjustment clause are vague, ac well as lacking a showing of nexus to the Applicants' r
financial qualifications to operate Comanche Peak.
Further-more, the numerous statements regarding the financial condition of utilities in general following the Three Mile Island accident, and the financial well-being of Metropolitan Edison during the same time frame, are not shown to be i
relevant to the Applicants' present financial condition, nor do they even attempt to show any nexus to considerations e
affecting the Applicants' financial condition during the operation of Comanche Peak.
These statements set forth by CASE are irrelevant to this proceeding.
Accordingly, CASE Contention 16 should be denied.
Proposed Contention 18 Applicants have failed to adequately assess the cost of the Westinghouse uranium settlement on CPSES in its ER as to how it affects the cost / benefit analysis.
Applicants oppose admission of Contention 18 because CASE has not set forth with reasonable specificity a basis for the contention, as required by 10 CFR S2.714(b).
As a purported basis for Contention 18, CASE merely states that Applicants "should" provide a" cost / benefit analysis for uranium fuel supply.
CASE totally fails, however, to
i demonstrate how the Applicants' cost / benefit analysis inadequ-ately considers uranium fuel supply.
CASE also fails to provide any support for its assertion that the Westinghouse settlement would change the cost / benefit balance already struck for Comanche Peak.
There is, therefore, no basis supporting the contention.
Accordingly, CASE Contention 18 should be denied.
Proposed Contention 19 CPSES has not been built in a manner so as to comply with certain regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in particular 10 CFR 550.57(a)(2), 10 CFR 550.57(a)(3), and 10 CFR 550.57(a)(6), and therefore should not be licensed for operation.
CASE Contention 19 deals very generally with the issue of quality assurance and quality control (OA/0C).
Applicants oppose admission of this contention as framed by CASE because it is vague and CASE has not set forth a basis with reasonable specificity for that contention, as required by 6
10 CFR S2.714(b).
Applicants also object to the Board's proposed restatement of the contention.
As worded by the Board in its Order 2/ admitting the QA/QC issue in this proceeding the contention is vague and fails to adequately identify the issues the parties will be required to litigate.
We will present a further statement of our position in this i
l regard at the presiding conference.
l l
l l
2/
See " Order Relative to Standing of Petioners to Intervene,"
Texas Utilities Generating Comoany, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-18, 9 NRC 728, 733 (1979).
. Furthermore, CASE does not set forth bases that are adequate to support its QA/QC contention or that of the Board.
Accordingly, CASE Contention 19 should be denied.
Respectf 11 submitted, o
Nichola sS.[fteynolds V
& a.C William A.
Horin DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN Counsel for Applicants 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 857-9800 Date:
April 10, 1980 O
1 l
ATTACHMENT A, PROPOSED STATEMENT OF CASE CONTENTIONS Contention 1.
Applicants have failed to demonstrate sufficient managerial and administrative controls to assure safe operation as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
[FORMERLY Contention 1.]
Contention 2.
Applicants have failed to demonstrate a need for the power to be generated by CPSES because:
I a.
The reserve margins presented in the Environmental Report (ER) reflect adequate reserve margins through 1985 without CPSES.
b.
The figures for the Applicants' capabilities, demands and reserves, set forth in the ER are inaccurate, incomplete and out of date.
[FORMERLY Contentions 3. and 4.]
Contention 3.
The ER fails to adequately discuss and consider new information concerning alternatives to the 5peration of CPSES available to Applicants (specifically, gas, coal, lignite and coal gasification).
[FORMERLY Contention 5.]
Contention 4 A cost-benefit balance favorable to operation of CPSES cannot be struck because of the following costs, which have not been adequately considered:
a.
Decommissioning; b.
The costs to insure that the reactor vessel for Unit #2 will fit correctly; c.
Fuel over the life of the plant; d.
Long-tem waste storage and/or disposal.
[FORMERLYContention6.]
Contention 5.
Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has adequately considered the health or ecoNmic costs of a possible accident involving spent fuel stored on-site, is discussed in Report No. 290 (NRC Translation #161, "5tudies Camparing the Greatest Possible Failure Sequences In a Processing Installation and In A Nuclear fower Plant"); SAND-77-1371, " Spent Fuel Heatup Following Loss of Water During Storage," the studies and testimony of Richard E. Webb, and the effects of a reactor accident on that spent fuel.
[FORMERLY Contention 7.]
Contention 6.
The Applicants fail to analyze the probability of and health and economic costs of a Class 9 accident.
[FORMERLY Contention 8.]
Contention 7.
Nef'.her the Applicants nor the Staff has adequately considered the health r,ffects of low-level radiation on the population surrounding CPSES.
[FORMERLY Contentions 9. and 17.]
l l
- Contention 8.
Neither the Applicant nor the Staff has adequately considered the potential econ'omic, effects on operation of CPSES because of accidents which may occur in reactors of similar design to CPSES.
[FORMERLY Contention 10.]
Contention 9.
The cost-benefit analysis is inaccurate in that Applicants' projection of a 30-40 yr. useful life for CPSES is unrealistic because of:
a.
effects of cumulative radiation on the plant, and b.
economic incentives to discontinue plant operation at some shorter time.
[FORMERLY Contention 11.]
Contention 10.
Applicants have failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, regarding emergency planning, for the following reasons:
a.
The FSAR does not identify state or regional authorities responsible for emergency planning or who have special
- qualificati6ns for dealing with emergencies.
b.
No agreements have been reached with local and state officials and agencies for the early war.1ing and evacuation of the public, including the identification of the principal officials by titles and agencies.
i
. c.
There is no description of the arrangements for services of physicians and other medical personnel qualified to handle radiation emergencies and arrangements for the transportation of injured or contaminated individuals beyond the site boundary.
d.
There are no adequate plans for testing by periodic drills of emergency plans and provisions for participation in the drills by persons whose assistance may be needed, otner than employees of the Applicant.
e.
There is no provision for medical facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, which includes Glen Rose; and f.
There is no provision for emergency planning for Glen Rose or the Dallas /Ft. Worth metroplex.
[FORMERLY Contentions 12,13,14 and 15.]
Contention 11.
The requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, as amendea, have not been met in that the Applicants are not fina.*:ially qualified to operate the proposed facil ity.
[FORMERLY Contention 16.]
Contention 12.
The Applicants' failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control provisions required by the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1&2, and the requirements of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50, and the construction
5-practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work, welding, inspec-tion, materials used and craft labor qualifications, have raised substantial questions as to compliance with 10 CFR 9 50.57(a)(1).
[FORMERLY Contention 19.]
l
\\
l l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicant's Statement Of Positions On Proposed CASE Contentions," in the captioned matter were served upon the following pers'ons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid this 10th day of April, 1980.
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
Dr. Forrest J.
Remick, Member Office of the Executive Atomic Safety and Licensing Legal Director Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 305 E. Hamilton Avenue Commission State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Richard Cole, Member David J.
Prerster, Fsa.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Environmental Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Division Commission P. O. Box 12548 t
i Washington, D.C.
20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mr. Richard L. Fouke U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CFUR Commission 1668B Carter Drive Washington, D.C.
20555 Arlington, Texas 76010 l
1
- Mrs. Juanita Ellis Mr. Chase R.
Stephens President, CASE Docketing & Service Section 1426 South Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay West Texas Legal Services 406 W.T. Waggoner Building 810 Houston Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102
}
l q
S/}Reynolds Nichola u
cc:
Homer C. Schmidt Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
April 10, 1980 1
T