ML19326B214
| ML19326B214 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1973 |
| From: | Davis F US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003061025 | |
| Download: ML19326B214 (14) | |
Text
.-..
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 06/18/73 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY AND THE
)
Docket No. 50-346 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
t-2-
7 COMPANY
)
g 0)Y k ))
0 0 e g,., I # ~ Y s
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station) e r'
5;,
NNEQ 7973,' -l;rl D.cs '* r...%. C [7 AEC REGULATORY STAFF RESPONSE jQ TO THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVEN,A
~#
B OF THE COALITION FOR SAFE ELECTRIC POWE
/N,o i v<Y On April 30, 1973, the Ato nic Energy Commission (Commission) published a notice in the Federal Register entitled " Receipt and Consideration of Is-suance of Facility License; Oppc-tunity for Hearing" (38 F.R.10661) regarding the captioned facility, which provided, inter alia, an opportunity for any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding to file a petition for leave to intervene in the proceeding on or before May 30,1973. That notice reflected the requirements for such a petition as specified in the Commission's " Rules of Practice," specifically,10 CFR S 2.714. Such petition must set forth the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, and the con-tentions of the petitioner.
8 0 0 3 0 61 &M 4
~
l In addition, any such petition shall be accompanied by a supporting affidavit identifying the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the pro-ceeding as to which the petitioner wishes to intervene and setting forth with particularity both the facts pertaining to his interest and the bases for his contentions with regard to each aspect on which he desires to intervene.
On May 30,1973, the Coalition for Safe Electric Power sent a telegram to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission stating:
" DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR PLANT OPERATING LICENSE. COALITION FOR SAFE ELECTRIC POWER PETITION TO INTERVENE IN PROCEEDINGS. PETITION BEING PLACED IN MAIL. REQUEST YOU TREAT TELEGRAM AS TLMELY FILING OF PETITION."
By itself, this telegram met none of the Commission's procedural or sub-stantive requirements for a petition for leave to intervene as reflected above.
Accordingly, it should be denied I
By cover letter to the Secretary of the Commission dated June 4,1973, the
,o.
i 1
j 1
i
\\
f l
~
4 l,
i I
I Coalition submitted a document styled " Petition for Leave to Intervene" in I
this proceeding. An explanation for this clearly untimaly filing was con-tained neither in the Petition nor in the earlier telegram.
The affidavit attached to the Petition is a simple adoption of the statements set forth in the Petition and fails to meet the requirements of 10 CFR
$ 2.714 in that it fails to adequately identify "the specific aspect
\\
or aspects of the subject matter of the preceeding as to which he (the affiant.
Evelyn Stebbins) wishes to intervene and/or en which he bases his request for a hearing and setting forth with particularity both the facts pertaining to his interest and the basis for his contentions with respect to esch aspect on which he desires to intervene."
Nonetheless, the AEC regulatory staff (staff) has reviewed the Petition to determine whether, considered as a whale, it provides adequate identification of specific aspects of the procekding and identification of bases for petitioner's contentions. We believe it deficient, and, for the following reasons respectfully urge its denial.
l The text preceeding paragraph 2, and paragraphs 2 through 6, show the g*
t'. 5 I
i I
t membership of the Coalition and its interest (the interests of the members of the Coalition).
i Paragraphs numbered 7 through 11 raise several objections of the Coalition.
Their thrust might fairly be stIted to be an objection to the procedural requirements of the Commission which require an Intervenor to specify con-tentions and provide their bases as part of a petition for leave to intervene.
Such complaint is without merit. The Commission's rules cast no unreason-able burden on a petitioner -- only that he specify that which he wishes to contest and the basis for his ' allegations concerning such matters.
In the instant proceeding, the petitioner, or related predecessors, have had access to a massive amount of information beginning with the PSAR, the entire record of the constru'ctio'n permit proceeding in which they participated, l
the record of the Section E - (of 10 CFR Part 50, App. D) proceeding in which I
they participated, the documents in the Section B proceeding in which they are presently participating, and the FSAR. There is certainly no lack of available information on the basis of which adequate contentions could have been formed.
c1
,o.
O
,,I' Further, Commission rules provide ample opportunity to request amendment of pleadings for " good cause" such as newly discovered information. See 10 CFR 2.711 and 10 CFR 2.71. Petitioner's motion in* para; aph 11 is an I
attempt to request, in advance and without a showing of good cause, leave to later amend their petition. The staff objects to such motion as improper under the Commission rules.
Paragraph 12 is merely an unsupported conclusional statement that petitioner variously contests those positive and negative findings on the ultimate radio-1 logical health and safety issues as are set forth in the regulations.
/ No factual basis is > -
- i wr such generalized objections to the findings required.
In paragraph 13, the Coalition has provided no basis for the allegations of threat to the environment, to the people of the area, to Lake Erie, to the i
fish and wildlife, or to the water supply of over 11 million people. The further allegations of violation of the Commission's own guidelines do not enumerate the specific aspects of these guidelines which are being " breached." In addition to lacking specificity,'no bases are provided therefor.
i Paragraph 14 attempts to raise the issue of reactor pressure vessel failure without indicating any basis therefor. It alleges no special considerations I
regarding this particular reactor pressure vessel. Accordingly, it clearly fails to meet the requirements of the Commission's Memorandum and Order 1_,/
10 CFR S 50.57.
I i
l
- l
\\
j dated October 26, 1972, In the Matter of Consolidated Edison Company l
(Indian Point Unit No. 2).
Paragraph 15 categorically stat s, and paragraph 16 necessarily implies, that the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) of the Davis-Besse facility will not function as planned. No bases are provided for such statements.
I For this reason alone the contentions in these two paragraphs should be I
denied. Additionally, they both appear to constitute a challenge to the Commission's Interim Acceptance Criteria for ECCS, and they are improper in form for such a challenge un' er the requirements of 10 CFR S 2.758.
d Paragraph 17 is ambiguous and without bases. One cannot tell from these contentions whether petitioner alleges that the quantity of hydrogen gas will exceed that indicated in the FSAR because of failure of the ECCS to limit metal water reaction in accordance with the interim criteria, or for some other specific reasons. Nor can one tell if petitioner instead challenges the post-LOCA hydrogen control system proposed in the FSAR for some other reason.
The Coalition fails to specify in paragraph 18 the alleged " accident, which is entirely possible, which could contaminate Lake Erie as a public water supply." The contention is totally wanting in specificity and basis.
l -
l The Coalition has provided no bases for its assertions in paragraph 19 I
that, because of " exposure to radiation " there is no assurance that the integrity of certain (unspecifie'd) components in the Davis-Besse facility l
will be maintained, and that there are no adequate procedures for inspection and replacement of these same " critical" components.
Paragraphs 20 and 21 suffer from the same defects as paragraph 19.
No bases are alleged for the statements that " quality control and quality 1
assurance procedures and programs have been inadequate to assure i
that the Davis-Besse Plant has been constructed in conformance with design," and "that crucial inape-tion points have been passed over without a proper inspection, and therefore materials of unknown quality have been installed."
i Paragraph 22 contains many contentions, all of which should be denied for one or both of the reasons which follow. The Coalition has not specified the type of accident which allegedly "would require immediate evacuation in the vicinity of the plant." This same lack of specificity is found in the allegation that unspecified "stbrms in that area" would make evacuation impossible.
1 Paragraph 23 also has no bases asserted for the contentions therein, and should be denied.
+
In paragraph 24 there is no indication of how this allegation bears signifi-cantly on the issues in this proceeding, and inadequate basis is given therefor.
Paragraph 25 does not state which portions of the plant will allegedly be subject to high water. In addition to this lack of specificity, there is no basis for the statement that such an event (higher water levels) is more likely than the Applicants assumed. ;.
Paragraph 26, as paragraph 12, is simply a denial that the positive ultimate environmental findings 2_/ can be made for this facility; it is without basis in l
itself, and appears to be no more than introduction for the contentions which follow.
1 Paragraphs 27, 28, 29 and 30 set forth no adequate bases for the assertions that the Applicants' biological and radiological monitoring programs are inadequate. In paragraph 29 there is no indication of the nature of the
" connection" which petitioner alleges must exist among the various food chain samples nor of the aspects of Applicants' surveillance and monitoring programs which fail to make such unspecified " connection".
In paragraph 30, no basis is provided for the general allegation that i
2f Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50.
I a " quick warning system to wkter users" as part of the radiological monitoring program is a condition precedent for the adequacy of that 3
program.
/
Paragraphs 31 - 39 raise contentions relating to the impact oflow level rad-lation from the facility. This issue was extensively considered during the course of the hearings relating to the Davis-Besse construction permit in 1970. The Coalition's predecessor was a party to that proceeding and had the opportunity to fully participate in that aspect of the hearing. Accordingly, we agree with the position taken by the Applicants in their response to this petition for leave to intervene-(paragraph 11 at page 10) that these contentions essentially raise the same iss es which have already been considered in any earlier licensing proceeding. lFurthermore, the petitioner has no't indicated in Paragraphs 31 - 39 that these contentions are based on any new information which may have become available subsequent to the 1970 hearings. In addition, they are also interr.persed with irrelevancies and ambiguous statements, such as one in contention 33 which refers to unspecified "other pollutants."
Paragraph 40 does not meet the requirements of 10 CFR S 2.714, inasmuch as " adverse effects" the Coalition predicts are not specified. In addition, l
c.
3 /
The staff wishes to note that a " quick warning system," separate from the instant program is provided for in this facility. See FSAR i
paragraph 11.4.2.1.
i l
1
no basis is provided for tlie contention that operation of the cooling tower will lead to the alleged adverse effects.
I Paragraph 41inarguably lacks the specificity required in a petition, and l
should be denied.
l l
t l
Paragraph 42 provides no basis for the contentisa therein, in that the Coali-tion does not allege what the components of a " competent analysis" should be.
Without that basis, it is defect ve.
l Paragraph 43, relating to decommissioning, is without basis.
Paragraph 44 attempts to raise the environmental effects of the entire uranium fuel cycle. As raised, these matters are improper for consideration in an individual licensing proceeding. (See, Vermont Yankee Nuclear l
i Power Corp., (Vermont Yanke,e Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-56, WASH 1218, June 6,1972).
j There is no basis given for the; allegations contained in paragraph 45, i
t Paragraph 46 is excessively broad. There is no specificity of contentions, I
but rather many very broad all'egations striking at many aspects of the i
planned operation of the facilith, and no basis is provided for any of tf 1
allegations.
,J' O
i l
t
i i
11 i
Paragraph 47 should also be denied as a contention in that no basis is pro-vided for the assertion that prbtection of the public from acts of saboteurs or l
terrorists has not been adequately provided for.
The contentions in paragraph 48 should be denied because they are without any bases. No basis is provided for the statement that transportation of spent fuel would present a hazard to public health and safety. In the next phrase, the Coalition states that an accident, while such wastes are being trans-ported by water, would be catastrophic, but does not give any basis therefor.
i Nor does it give any indication of accidents which the Coalition allege have not been adequately considere'd. In the next sentence, the Coalition again
]
refers to a " transportation acc' dent causing the release of spent fuel i
elements," but does not give a basis for assuming such an accident.
In summary, the petition is untimely, and provides no showing of good cause therefor. But more significantly, the petition is defective for failure to specify contentions adequately, for failure to provide an adequate affidavit, and/or for e
a*
C1 e
e
-s.
failure to otherwise specify adequate supporting bases for any contention.
For these reasons the staff believes the petition should be denied.
l Respectfully submitted, m
/h Y
e Francis X. Davis Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Dated at Bethesda, hjaryland this 18th day of June,1973.
i i
t o
i gs L* i l
t
s s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
-)
TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY ND THE
)
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
. Docket No. 50-346 COMPANY
)
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
I hereby certify that copies of AEC Regulatory Staff Response to the Petition For Leave to Intervene of the Coalition For Safe Electric Power," dated June 18,1973, in the captioned matter, have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 18th day of June,1973:
John B. Farmakides. Esq., Chairman Dr. Harry Foreman, Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Center for Population Studies Board Panel University of Minnesota U.S. Atmic Energy Commission Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Washington, D.C.
20545 Ms. Evelyn Stebbins, Chairman Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Director Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power Bodega Marine Laboratory 705 Elmwood Road University of California Rocky River, Ohio 44116 P.O. Box 247 Bodega Bay, California 94923 Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Mr. Frederick J. Shon 91017th Street, N.W.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20006 Board Panel U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20545 Appeal Board U.S. Atomic Energy Commiss.on Joseph F. Tubridy, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20545 4100 Cathedral Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C.
20545 4
i s
l Mr. Frank W. Karas Chief, Public Proceedings Staff Office of the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 l
Russell Z. Baron, Esq.
Brannon, Ticktin, Baron & Mancini 930 Keith Building l
Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
Corporate Solicitor fy The Cleveland Electric N
V
lliuminating Company Francis X. Davis Post Office Box 5000 Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Cleveland, Ohio 44101 J
4 i
-l 4
l i
1 i
e g
a Y
.