ML19340A303
| ML19340A303 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 02/15/1973 |
| From: | Davis F US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003050708 | |
| Download: ML19340A303 (9) | |
Text
.
eUF ff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 2/15/73 BEFORE THE COMMISSION i
In the Matter of
)
l THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY'AND TH C LAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING Docket No. 50-346 (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
)
l Station)
)
AEC REGULATORY STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE C0ALITION FOR SAFE NUCLEAR POWER l
On January 5,- 1973, the Atomic Energy Commissicn (Commission) published a Notice -of Hearing (Notice) regarding the captioned matter (38 F.R. 904),
pursuant to Chapter 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (10 CFR Part 50), Appendix 0, Section B, whichsets forth procedures applicable to the l
review of environcental considerations for production and utilization facilities for which construction permits or operating licenses were issued in the period January 1,1970 - September 9,1971.
.That Notice provided an opportunity for any person whose interest may be
[
affected by this proceeding to file a petition for leave to intervene, within thirty days of publication, 'fith respect to whether, considering those matters covered by Appendix 0 to 10 CFR Part 50, the construction-l permit should -be: continued', madified terminated, or appropriately con-
' ditioned to l protect-environmental vaiaes.
~
8003050 % [
4 2-That Notice also set forth the. requirements for such petition in accordance with the ' Commission's " Rules of Practice" (10 CFR Part 2).
It must be filed under oath or affirmation, and it shall, among other things, set forth the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest
' may be affected by the results of the proceeding, and other contentions of the petitioner,' including the facts and reasons why he should be permitted to intervene, with particular reference to the following factors:
(1) the nature of the petit'ioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect i
on the petitioner's interest of any opder which may be entered in the pro-ceeding.
Any.such petition shall be accompanied by a supporting affidavit identifying the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which the petitioner wishes to intervene and setting f
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.
In a letter dated February 2,- 1973, and received by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission.cn February 6,1973, the Coalition for Safe Nuclear Pcwer enclosed its " contentions with-respect to the forthcoming Environmental Hearing" regarding the. captioned matter.
The petition is p
y 9
g y
y ie y'
t
~
3-p l
l L
defective under the requirements 'of 10 CFR 2.714.in that it was not made under. oath or ' affirmation, it was not accompanied by a' supporting. affidavit, and it fails to set forth the interest. of petitioner or how that. interest may be affected'.. As.the Coalition stated in its letter, it had.previously participated as an intervenor in the captioned matte
' While the basis for
?-
l its partic.pation-in the radiological phase may be equally appropriate for l
participation in the environmental / phase, we believe that the petitioner
- i l
should provide the Board appointed to consider the issues under the-present l
Notice with adequate information for determining that the basis for peti-tioner's interests -(interests of the membership) remains the same. We believe that petitioner should be provided this opportunity to provide such information during the course of the prehearing procedure.
l-
- In addition to these objections to the Coalition's contentions on procedural i
~
grounds, the staff.has.certain substantive objections to the ' adequacy of some of the contentions themselves. They co'nsist of thirty-seven numbered para-
- graphs (1 through 36, with two paragraphs numbered 28),17 lettered sub-
-paragraphs to_ paragraph number 26, and six-lettered subparagraphs to the L
- first paragraph-numbered 28.. Each group of lettered subparagraphs will be 1
l
/,l/ See' the ruling made. orally on December 10,-1970, by the Atomic Safety
- nd Licensing-Board presiding in the radiological haalth an.i safety
- phase of this matter upon allegations contained in an Amendeo Petition
~
of Intervention-dated December.5, 1970-(Tr. 385-87).
f Sp' 3
-New
--- p1 y
.344.-
- gmq gee g
g y
--og-.ia y
-pt e.mm vv s -h r t
. dealt with as a whole.
To deal with the numbered categories individually would be repetitious.
Because they fall roughly into categories, they will be dealt with on that basis. Whenever the staff states that the contentions are, or might be, redrafted to becoma adequately specified, it, of course, does not concede the marits of such contentions.
Paragraphs numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 17, 21, and the first numbered para-graph 28 are conclusional and without any basis.
In addition to being con-clusional, paragraphs 17 and 21 are not worded to indicate any relevance to the issues specified.
Paragraphs 6-10,12,14,16,18,19, 23, 24, 35, and 36 plainly deal wi th radiological health and safety issues.
Such issues were the subject of radiological safety hearings before the Atomic Energy Commission concerning this facility, which were conducted in 1970, and at which the Coalition participated as a party; they are not before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the present proceeding.
Rather, the present proceeding relates to whether, considering the matters covered by Appendix D to Part 50, the con-struction permit should be continued, modified, terminated, or appropriately conditioned to protect environmental values.
In addition, it should be noted that paragraph 8 appears to constitute a challenge to the Commission's Ir.terim Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems and are improper in form
~..
+
p
!- l I-
- for. such a challenge-under the requirements of 10 CFR E2.758 Paragraph 12 may be intended as a contention that, in considering the l-risks and benefits of the facility, the Board should consider the con-l sequences of a class 9 accident.
If so, the petition is totally without l
basis for such a contention.
The petitioner's position would appear to.
i be that the Board must corsider all physically possible accidents as opposed to a consideration which takes into account that range of physically possible' accidents including many that may be fairly char-acterized as incredible. We believe that this approach is reasonable
~
and is consistent with that set forth in the Commission's proposed annex I
to Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 (36 F.R. 22851, December 1,1971).
Accordingly, ~if' paragraph 12 is intended to assert that the-Board should I
consider the consequences of a class. 9 accident in weighing the costs and benefits of the. facility,.we believe that it is without basis and without l.
l legal. foundation'. There is another view of this contention - that it is l-intended -to, raise again those questions of adequacy-of the design basis,
- including design basis accident considerations, which were the subject of'
. the' p_revious' hearings-relating to radiological ' health and safety.
If so, it would appear that:the petitioner wishes to relitigate the adequacy of E
. the design basis accidents which were. selected for design of the plant Lto assure radio. logical health and safety.
This, of course, was~ a prin-cipal issue of'the. radiological health and safety hearing.
N
't
- W M
w-t-
m 4
vs-r t-m=
at y-er qy v
9 Paragraph 20, to the extent it deals with the effects of the discharge of radioactive effluents, and paragraph 32, to the extent that it is inter-preted to deal with the radiological effects of plutonium as a fuel, were also matters plainly ripe for consideration in the radiological health and safety phase of this proceeding.
Additionally, that interpretation of paragraph 32 is speculative and conclusional; but paragr'aph 20, to the extent that it discusses the effect of heat upon the environs of the facility, and paragraph 32, to the extent that it is intended to deal with the use of plutonium as an alternate fuel are relevant to the issues of this proceeding and could' be allowed as contentions if adequate bases are provided.
Paragraphs 33 and 34, to the extent they raise contentions other than the transportation of. cold fuel to, and spent fuel from, the facility, and the transportation of low-level and high-level wastes from the facility to depositories are improper for consideration in an individual licensing proceeding.U Those matters are more suitable for consideration in the Commission's informal rule making proceeding concerning the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle (37 F.R. 24'91).
y See Vermont Yankee fiuclear Power Coro., (Vermont Yankee fiuclear Power Station), ALAB-56, June 6,1972.
-~.
i 1
7-4 m
I Paragraphs 3, 22, 25, 30, and 31 all identify specific aspects of the i
subject matter as -to which petitioner wishes to intervene, but do not set forth an adequate basis for such contentions.
If petitioner provides adequate specification of such basis during the course of prehearing pro-ceedings, one or more of these contentions may also constitute appropriate issues for the hearing.
i j
Paragraph 26 and its subparagraphs all deal with the assessment of radio-logical risks connected with the operation of the facility.
Taken sepa-i..
rately, certain of these subparagraphs are without bases (the first sentence
[
of paragraph 26, and b, h, m, n, o, p, and q) and some appear to raise ques-i tions concerning the adequacy of protection of radiological. health and safety 1
and may raise challenges 'to the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 20
~
' and 50.
However, taken together, we -believe that the thrust of the conten-tion: raised by paragraph 26 is that the environmental impact attributed to routine releases of radioactive materials from the plant will-be substantially greater than that' postulated - and that the bases for such contention'are-the
~
reasons set forth in the-subparagraphs of paragraph 26. To this extent, the Econtention may raise : issues appropriate for the present proceeding.
t
~
s
,+
g e
r
4 s
l 8--
1 t
Paragraphs 28 and 29: appear to set forth specific contentions related to the. issues of this; proceedinc.and their bases.
i For the foregoing reasons, the' staff has no objection to the participation by the Coalition as.intervenors in the captioned. proceeding with respect to the issues set'forth in p'aragraph 26, to the extent discussed above, and the, issues set forth in paragraphs 128 and 29, provided that the Coalition submits to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board adequate iqformation to determine petitioner's interest. With respect to contentions in -para-graphs 13, 22, 25, 30,1 and 31,--the staff believes that petitioner should have the' opportunity;to specify these matters further by the time of the prehearing conference _in the captioned proceeding.
In all other respects, th' e. contentions should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, 0
k,.,<.Aado
&(%
Francis X. Davis Jaunsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland,
- thisL15th dayfof February,1973.
i I.
.e
,m,
,..,s
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
THE TOLED0 EDIS0N COMPANY AND THE
)
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
Docket No. 50-346 COMPANY
)
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the "AEC Regulatory Staff's Response to the Contentions of the Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power," were sarved on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 15th day of February,1973:
l Ms. Evelyn Stebbins, Chairman Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power l
312 Park Bidg.,140 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
l Shaw, Pittnan, Potts, Trowbridge & Madden 910 Seventlenth Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 l
l Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board l
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission l
Washington, D. C.
20545 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Atomic Energy Comission Washington, D. C.
20545 Mr. Frank W. Karas Chief, Public Proceedings Staff Office of the Secretary of the Comission U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 C
/\\
G (f:.ef i
Q f'%sC( f,',G v
Francis X. Davis Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff
,