ML19343B746
| ML19343B746 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1980 |
| From: | Pollock M COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP, POLLOCK, M. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343B744 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012300203 | |
| Download: ML19343B746 (23) | |
Text
. -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLF.AR RIDULATORY COMMISSICH 3EFORE THE A':tMIC SAFETY AND LICHISING 30ARD In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-142
( ; p sed Renewal of THE RIGHTTS OF THE UNIVERSITY Facility License) 0F CALIFORNIA (UCIA Research Reactor)
INTERVINOR'S STATHiENT OF POSITION CN THE AIY~JSLM OF CGTHiTIONS NOT STIIUIATED
_ TO IN THE NOVIMEER 28, ic80 STIFJLATIW Introduction Pursuant to a notice published in the Federal Re61 ster on April 25, 1980, the Committee to Bridge the Gap (Interrenor) filed a timely petition for leave to intervene, requesting that a hearir4 he held on the application of the Regents of the University of California (Applicant) for renewal of the operatirg and special nuclear material licenses for the UCLA Research Reactor. Ch July 21, 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (3oari) issued an order scheduling a prehearing conference in the matter for September 18, 1980. Pursuant to Petitioner's request the prehearing conference was rescheduled for September 25, 1980 in a Board order issued on August 11, 1980.
( Ihe Boari's Au6ust 11 order provided that Petitioner could supple- ,
I ment its petition to intertene up to August 25 1980. Responses to such l a supplement were due to be filed by Applicant on September 9, 1980 and by the NRC Staff (Staff) on September 17, 1980. In accoriance with the 3 card's order and as pe=nitted by 10 CFR 2.714(b), Interrenor filed a supplement to its petiticn on August 25, 1980, setting forth the contentions i
8012300$O3 - -
2 it wishes to have admitted as issues in the licensing proceeding. The Applicant and the Staff filed their responses to Intervenor's supple-mental cententions on September 9, 1980 and September 17, 1980 respectively. .
Ch September 25,1980 the 3 card convened a special prehearing conference.
At this ccnference the 3cari admitted Intervenor's contentiens II, III, IV, and VII, granted Intervenor intervenor status and requested that the parties meet, confer and reach a stipulation regariing the admissibility of the remaining cententions. The 3cari's decision was set forth in an order issued October 2, 1980, hrsuant to the Boari's request the parties met en September 25, 1980 and conducted eenference calls on October 2, 1980, October 22, 1980, November 10, 1980 and November 13, 1980, for the purpose of reaching a stipulation. These sixteen hours of conference and negotiation resulted in the stipulation delivered to the Board en November 28, 1980.
The stipulation is divided into three attachmenta, A, 3, and C.
Attachment A contains the contentions to which all parties stipulate to as being adnissible in this proceeding. Attachment 3 contains contentions as to which all parties agree as to the language or woriing of the conten-tions. The footnote to Attachment 3 sets forth those contentiens which the Staff believe should be admitted as matters in controversy.
Attachment C contains those contentions upon which all three parties could not agree as to admissibility or wording. The foregoing is true with the exception of contentions XX and XXIV. These two contenticus he.ving to do with the physical security of the facility have not been discussed by the parties. Due to the confidential nature of the regulations regariing physical security and the confidential nature of the Applicant's
3 physical security plan, the Staff with Applicant's approval requested that Interrenor delay submission of these cententions until such time as the Staff could brief Interrenor en the regulations. Intervenor's compliance with this request resulted in the submission of these contentions at the very end of the stipulatica process makir4 discussion of these cententiens impossible pdor to reaching the stipulation. Ihe Board will note that the footnote to Attachment C does not include any indication of the divergence of positions taken en the wordir4 or admissibility of the Staff and the Applicant such as was included in the footnote to Attachment 3. During the negotiations the parties agreed that such an indication of divergence would appear in the footnote to Attachment C. Ihe Staff in preparir4 the stipulation omitted the indication of dive:gence in position despite the understandir4 reached in the negotiations. Despite the Staff's omission Interrenor signed the stipulation in the interest of moving the process forward. However, for the Board's information the divergin3 positions were: the Staff supported admission of contentions VI.6, XVII, XIX (umbrella paragraph)
XIX.2, XIX.3, XIX.4. The Staff supported the woriing of XIX.5 Applicant supported the woriing of XIX (umbrella paragraph). These positions are those taken by the parties as of the final conference call and stipulation agreement.
pursuant to the terms of the stipulation the Interrenor's position and argument supporting the admissibility of all contentions not stipulated to as admissible by the parties in the November 28, 1980 stipulatien are set for.h below.
4 i
Standaris for Determining the AMM ssibility of Cententions ,
Under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.714 and 10 CFR 2.751a the 3cari musT, rule en the adnissibility of an Intervenor's contentions. In making such a sling the Boari's task is to:
D etemine from a scrutiny of what appears within the four I comers of the contention as stated, whether,1. the requisite specificity exists; 2. there has been adequate delineation of the basis for the contention; and 3 the issue sought to be raised is cognizable in an individual licensing proceeding.
Alabama Power Co., Joseph M. Farley, Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2)(AIA3-182, 7AEC 210, 217 (1973): reversed on other grounds, CLI-74-12, 7 AEC 203 (1974)
In general the specificity and basis requirements of 10 CFR 2.714(b) are for the purpose of establishing a sufficient foundation for the centention to warrsnt further inquiry into the subject matter, and to put the other parties on notice so that they will know at least generally what they vill have to defend against or oppose. Philadel:hia Electric Co.
(?each Bottcm Atomic Fower Station, Units 2 & 3) AIA3-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974). "But this does not mean that Section 2.714 should be tumed into a fortress to deny intervention because the basis for even one cententien appears to be lacking, even though as a result of a reasonable appraisal there would appear to be sufficient specificity and basis to warrant further prehearing exploration in connecticn with the facility to be licensed". Peach Botten supra at 21.
In meeting the standards for admissibility it is not necessary for
- the petition "to detail the evidence which vill be offered in support of l
each contention. " Missitti Power & Light Co. (G m d Gulf Nuclear Station l
Units 1 & 2), AIA3-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973). Nor should the licensing i
beard reach the serits of the contention. Duke Power Co. AIA3-589, 9 NRC r*
5 146,151 (1979). In other words the petitioner need only state the reasons for its cententions. Houston Light & Ibwer Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAS-590,11 NIic 542, 548 (1980).
In sum, the standards for admissibility of contentions at this stage of the pmceeding are not very rigomus and should not be applied by a board in such a way that they become an impediment to intervention.
Attachment 3 The cententions in this attachment are those which all parties agreed upon as far as wording, but at least one party opposed as far as admissibility. Of the three criteria for admissibility; specificity, basis, and an issue cognisable in the licensing proceeding, the parties by stipulation have essentially limited the controversy over the admissibility of these cententions to the issue of whether a particular centention is co6nizable. By agreeing to the language of the cententions the parties have in essence agreed that the language is specific enough to put the parties on notice as to what they must defend against or oppose, and that sufficient basis for the contention exists. Consequently, Intervenor will pr'ma m y limit its a=guments to the issue of whether the cententions are cognizable in this proceeding.
CONTENTICN I This centention meets the specificity, bases, and proper issue criteria for admissibility. Intervenor contends that Applicant has omitted essential information, specifies precisely what information has j been emitted, and in the bases indicates why the omission is material and essential. Finally, the accuracy and completeness of information contained i
in the application for license renewal is a proper subject for Board consideraticn in these proceedings.
Intervenor anticipates that the Staff and/or the Applicant will
6 oppose this contention en the grounds that the omission was not material and that the Intervenor is incorrect about the significance of the information. These arguments go to the merits of the contention and are not proper grounds for opposition to admissien of this contention.
Notwithstanding the grcunds for opposition are improper, Intervenor will adress the argument in order to illustrate that the issue is truly on of merit.
The centention arises from the citation to a journal article by the Applicant on pa6e II/3-1 of the application, in support of the assertien that the largest accident possible at this reactor would have negli61ble environmental effects. The cited article is a report on experimental vibration tests (eartrquake simulations) conducted on the UCIA reactor.
A reading of the article indicates that the tests caused damage to the reactor necessitating major repairs. The article also indicates that the specific wealctess that caused the immediate problem was corrected. Inter-vencr contends that citing an article in support of the assertion that the reactor will not effect the environment in the event of a major accident, but failing to mention that the reactor suffered si6nificant damage as a result of the subject tests is an omission of information essential to anyone attempting to fairly evaluate the assertion and the citation made by the Applicant, regardless of whether or not the immediate problem was correcteed. The only issue surrounc'ing this centention is the factual questien of the significance and essential nature of the Applicant's omission in the centext in which the omission was made.
Ilesolution of this question requ;.res an examination of factual questions cnly properly censidered at later stages of this proceeding.
7 CGTmTIglS 7.3 & V.11 The Staff supports the admission of these subparts to contention V.
The subparts are specific, puttir4 the Applicant en notice as to what it sust defend against and are supported by substantial bases set forth in the supplemental cententions. The issue raised by these subparts is i
prepar for consideration by the Board in this proceeding. The Applicant by stipulatin6 to the admission of 12 of 14 subparts of contention V has evidenced a belief that the licensed excess reactivity levels at this facility are proper issues for 3ea=1 consideration. Subparts 3 and 11 are central to any such consideration of excess reactivity levels because they place at issue the current and propose licensed levels, asserting that those levels endanger the public health and safety.
CN T5 TICN X Ihis centention places the NRC's efforts to comply with the requirements of NEPA at issue in this lic'ensing proceeding. Consequently, this contention is aimed primarily at the Staff and not at the Applicant. The Staff supports adnission of the contention.
Interrenor anticipates that the Applicant will base its opposition to the admission of this contention on the fact that subparts 1.a and 1.b contain references to power reactors. Intervenor is not contendi 6 that the regulations on their face require a mandatory EIS for this facility.
Interrenor is centending that the significance of an action on the human environment is not affected by the particular fact of power or research usage. The NRC has, determined that power reacters, even if they meet the regulatory guidelines for emissions etc., have s16 nificant impacts I upon the human environment. Therefore, if a research reactor, whether l
_ _ _ , _ .. _ - _ - - - - _ . . _ . _ , - . ~ .--- ,. _ _ ___ .,- - - _
8 permitted to or not under the regulations, exceeds those standards the research reactor licensir4 nust also constitute a major federal action which significantly affects the hume environment.
CNTHITION XI This centention is specific, and is supported by adequate bases.
The contention places at issue the adequacy of the environmental infor-mation relating to the NEFA cespliance process, provided thus far in this licensing process, by the Applicant to the NRC. Interrenor does not seek to assert that the Applicant is required to supply this or any other information in the NEPA process. InterterJr is asserting that the Staff has not requested or received sufficient information to support a determination by either the Staff or the 3ca=1 that the licensing action has no significant impact on the human envircnment.
CG THTTIm XII This contention is very specific, putting the Applicant en notice as to which safety features are inadequate or lacking. The contention is supported by s.ubstantial bases which raise questions that clearly warrant further exploration in this process. Furthermore, there are few issues that are :nore appropriate for a licensing proceeding than the safey equipment and features of an applicant's facility, Finally, the Staff supports the admission of this r;cntention.
CN THiTION XV There are two types of safety issues relating to the siting and location of this facility: those siting characteristics which themselves pose a threat to the safety of the faci'ity, and those siting characteris-tics which effect the consequences of accidental or normal operaticnal l
l radiation releases for the public health and safety. The first type 1
- ~ ,- - - - - . - - - - . . . - . _ _ _
9 of issue is dealt with in contention XVII. The latter type of issues are the subject of this contention.
The centention is very specific, identifying three factors, general population density in the vicinity of the reactor, the immediate proximity of classroom and office buildings to the reactor, and the interface of environmental and air control systems for the reactor facility and those office and classrocm buildings. These three factors are critical to determining the consequences of radiation releases at the facility on the public health and safety. h factors identified are supported by adequate bases and are clearly proper issues for Boari consideration. Furthermore, the Staff supports the admission of this contention.
CCNTHITIQi XVII Centention SVII places at issue those physical characteristics of the facility location that pose threats to the safety of the facility.
The contention also asserts that the Applicant's analysis and information
/
regardi:ug such siting characteristics is inadequate to support the issuance of a license. The contention is specific in identifyir4 physical characteristics and information that has been omitted and the impact of physical siting characteristics on reactor safety is clearly an appropriate issue for 3 card consideration. The Staff supports admissicn of this contention. .
Intervenor anticipates that the Applicant will oppose the admission of subpart 5 arguir4 that it does not apply to this facility. 10 CFR 50 34(b) provides:
10 (b) Each application for a license to operate a facility shall include... the following:
(1) All current infor:ation, such as the results of ,
envircnmental and meteorological nonitoring programs, which has been developed since issuance of the construction '
permit, relating to site evaluation factors identified in hrt 100 of this chapter.
To the extent that the Applicant argues fhat the above section does not apply to this facility they are challenging the structure of the regula-tions, a challenge that is clearly outside the scope of this proceedir4 CCNTENTION XVIII
'Ihis contention is specific, supported by adequate bases, and places at issue the Applicant's ability to comply with the regulatory require-ments for financial resources that are a preconditien to the issuance of a license. The Staff supports the admission of this contention. ,
- The ripeness of subpart 3 of this contention depends upon the Iioard's determination of the proper license classification for this facility. Intervenor has placed the Applicant's license classification at issue in contention II (admitted by the 3 card on September 25,1980).
If the Applicant is deteMned to be properly subject to the license classification described in either 10 CFR sections 50.21(b) or 50.22, they must meet heightened financial requirements. Therefore, until such time as the Applicant may be determined not to be subject to the above sections this subpart should be admitted as warranting further consideration in the prehead ng period.
CCNTINTION XXI During the stipulation nfgotiations a new set of regulations governing emergency resonse plans became effective. Facilities of the )
% or s - g -
-w.g g g V -
naeeav? 7y e-
11 type of which the UCLA reactor is presently described as being are given two years from November 3,1980 to subnit complying plans to the NRC. However, the new regulatiens also provide that no new licenses nay be issued without emergency rege-:se plans that confor to the new regulations. Bus the iceyj must $1ress several issues before it can reach the questien of me altimate ripeness of this contention for censideration at the hearing.
The 3 card must detenine whether or not this facility is subject to the two year implementation schedula or whether because of the contended comnercial character of the facility the facility is subject to the April 1, 1981 applicable to commercial reactors. The Boar:i must also consider whether in the context of the provisions of the new re6ulations the Applicant must submit a confomhg plan for consideration, prior to the issuance of a license, because the facility is currently subject to a licensing proceeding. Interrenor contends that the tens of the new regulations and the interest of efficient use of resources by all parties dictate that Applicant should submit a confoning plan prior to the issuance of a new license. Furthenore, Interrenor centends that the present plan, re6ardless of the new regulatory timeline, is so inadequate as to pose a threat to the public health and safety in the next two years. Consequently, Interrenor asserts that this contentien should be admitted and the license should not be granted without l
l substantial improvstents in the existing plan. Finally, due to the fact i
I l that none of the parties have had adequate opportunity to research and i
discuss the new re6ulations, Interrenor respectfully requests that any decision on this centention be postponed until such time as the parties l
l may m a *asponsive briefs and have oral argument.
I
_ _ m- - , , , -
12 ATTACEMENT C The contentions in this attachment are placed here because at least one party to the stipulation was unable to agree to placin6 the centention in attachments A or 3, except h the caces of cententions XX and XXIV which have not been seriously considered by the parties. By the terms of the stipulation, the wording of these contentions is not agreed to by the parties. Therefore, the 3 card may request or require chan6es and clarifi-cations in these contentions. Josech M. Farley supra at 217 The footnote to attachment C indicates that both the Staff and the Applicant oppose the admission of all contentions in this attachment. This statement does not accurately reflect the reasons that contentions are included in this attachment nor the positions taken by the parties during the course of the ne6otiations. It is Interrenor's belief that during the course of the negotiations the Staff supported, the admission of cententions VI.6, SVII.2, XIX.2, XIX.3, and supported the woriing of contention XIX.4 These contentiens appear in attachment C because of the Applicant's
, opposition to their ad=ission and woriing. The unanimity of opposition l
to the attachment C contentions suggested by the conjunctive language of the footnote (earlier drafts of the stipulatien read " Staff and/or Applicant . .. oppose admission", the current stipulation reads " Staff and Applicant ... oppose admission") implies that the Staff has changed I their position en the contentions subsequent to the final negotiations.
Interrenor has signed the stipulation despite this implication of unilateral change in the interest of moving the process forward but is waiting with interest to see whether and en what grounds Staff now opposes i
the admissicn of these contentions.
l
- . , . . _ _ . - ~ _ . -_ - - - . _
13 RNTITTIQi VI.1 There are two types of standards that the Board must apply to dete mine whether the issuance of a facility license is waranted:
compliance with specific re6ulatory provisions and whether the licensing will endanger the public health and safety. This contention places at issue the University's ability, when all factors are considered, to limit the emissions of the reactor to a level that will not endan6er the public health and safety.
CQiTHTTIOT VI.6 This contention request the Board to make a site specific determination of the numerical standards against which the AIARA compliance of this Applicant and facility jud ed.
6 The contention does not assert that the numerical AIARA guidelines for power reactors should apply to all research reactors or that the Board is compelled to adopt such numerical utandards.
This contentien does not challenge the structure of the regulations nor does it require the Boa:d to en6a6e in :ule making. "The law does not preclude administrative a6encies from passing en issues of general l
applicability in individual adjudications." potomac Zlectric power Co.
l l
(Douglas Ibint Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2) 8 AIC 79, 84 1
l (1975).
Applicant is clearly required to meet the AIARA requirements of the regulations. There are no specific numerical guidelines provided for research reactor ALARA compliance. The Applicant has chosen to include ALARA specifically in its technical specifications and has discussed compliance in tems of 10 CFR 50 36a, a section which specifies
! the numerical guidelines for power reactor compliance. The 3 card in l
l
14 making a final determination of ALARA compliance by this facility will necessarily have to apply some standard of compliance to the facility. Currently, the only numerical guidelines adopted by the NRC for determining ALARA ccmpliance are contained in Regulatory Guide i.109 and in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I. Intervenor contends that these guidelines represent the best existing expression of the levels of emissions that evidence compliance with the ALARA principle.
The AIARA principle itself is a rule of reason. The concept behind the :.ule is that it is desireable to have the lowest possible emissions that can be achieved reasonably. To determine what is reasonable in this case the Board should be61n with the numerical guidelines determined through the rulemaking process by the NRC then consider the specific characteristics of this faci 11ty and its operation tp deter =ine whether there is some policy justification for allowing this facility to emit greater quantities of radiation than are allowed at a power reactor facility. In any event the Board should adopt some position en the canner by which it will adress ALARA compliance in this proceeding because the parties have stipulated to parts of cententien VI which place Applicant's ALARA compliance at issue.
1 CGITINTIGN VIII.3 This contentien is similar to centention VI.6 discussed above. The j l
current re6ulations do not specify in nunerical terms what levels of 1
radiation exposure resulting from a major accident are acceptable at l
a research reactor faci " ty. The numerical guidelines adopted by the NRC for power reactors are centained in 10 CFR 100. The Applicant has in its own license application on page II/3-1 cited the Part 100 limits 1
15 as an applicable standard. Intervenor contends that the Part 100 stan'iards are reasonable and should be adopted by the Board to judge the acceptability of the radiation releases postulated in the event of a majo,r accident at this facility. Interrenor finds it difficult to identify any policy considerations that would suggest that the levels l of radiation releases considered as endangering the public health and safety at a power fac4'ity would not also end eger the public health and safety at a research facility.
CONT 2iTION X.4 This contentio is clear, specific, supported by bases and app:cpriately places tha cost of running and decommissioning the reactor at issue as part of the cost benefit analysis of an EIS. Intervenor anticipates that the Staff may oppose the admission of this contention en the grcunds that the cost of decc=missioning the reactor can only be censidered insofar as the cost has increased since the initial licensing. This argument night have serit if this was an operating license proceeding which followed an construction proceeding for which an EIS had been prepared. This action however is a relicensing action considering the entire facility and
~
entire license. Furthermore, this facility has never been subjected to an IIS and therefore any analogies made to the construction and operatirag license situation are not applicable to this facility.
CQiTH! TION XIII This centention seets the specificity, basis and issue requirements for admission. The Applicant is put on notice of the particular regulatorf sections it must meet and that it must demonstrate that the quantities and
16 enrichment levels that it has requested are necessary to operate this facility. The bases for this contentien are set forth fully in the supplemental contentions. . Finally, the issue of quantity and quality of nuclear material needed to operate a facility are critical issues for deternination by the Board in keeping with the Boari's general mission to re6ulate the use of nuclear materials in such a way as to minimize the potential dangers to the public health and safety.
CONTINTION XIV This centention asserts that the safety of a reactor cannot be assured when the safety analysis conducted 'ef the applicant fails to examine inherent problems in the reactors design which have been encountered at s4 i'ar fac
- ties. Interrenor has specified severnl problems inherent to Argonaut type reactors which have been identified at other facilities in Interreno1s supplemental contentions.
8 The Applicant has failed to adress these failures in its application.
The principle that an adequate analysis of a safety question requires i
a review of current literature and knowledge in the field has been accepted l
by all parties as relevant to these proceedin6s. Contentien VIII.1(e) stipulated to as admissible by all parties, places at issue Applicant's l
failure to ccnduct a review of the current literature concerning dose l
l and dispersion models. Centention V.8 also stipulated as admissible places at issue Applicant's failure to review the current literature relating to excess reactivity and destructive power excursions.
Intervenor has made it clear what type of analysis is lacking.
The lack is supported by bases. To the artent that the staff or Applicant l
assert that there are no inherent problems which have been identified for
1 I
17 Argonaut type reactors they are a. W the serits of the centention.
CCNT3tTICN XVI The umbrella pa:agraph and subpart one of this contentien have been stipulated to as admissible by all parties. Hav.dng so stipulated the parties have evidenced an acceptance of Intervenors assertion that the a6e of a facility and its equipment are relevant in deteWndng the safety and perfo=ance capabilities of the facility.
Subparts 2 and 3 are specific and are supported by statements taken directly out of the Applicant's annual reports (supplemental contention X7 pa6e 1). Subparts 2 an:13 are proper issues for the Boari's ennsideration as il7ustrated by the fact that 10 CFR 50.40 which sets forth the considerations that will gu&de the decision to issue a license includes, "the facility and equipment".
Subpart 4 places at issue the license period requested by the-Applicant.
The fact that the license period is a proper satter for 3oa:d detemination is clear from the provisions of 10 CFR 50 51. :
Fach license vill be issued for a fixed period of time to be specified in the license but in no case to exceed 40 years fren the date of issuance. Where the operation of a facility is involved the Commission will issue the license for the ters requested by the applicant or for the estimated useful life of the facility if the Comission determines that i
the estimated useful li_"e is less thrn the term Itacuested.
(emphasisadded)
Inter 7enor contends that the useful life of this facility is no more than five years.
Subpar: 5 follows up en subpart 4 by asser:ing that the reactor has
4ted usefulness to the University community and a 7 4,ited useful life.
Subpart 5 is also a proper centention for censideration in this proceeding l
I 18 for two additional reasons. 10 CFR 50.42 sets out additional standarts for class 103 licensees which include, "(a) The proposed activities vm serte a useful purpose proporticnate to the quantities of special nuclear material or source material to be utilized." Interrenor is asserting in centention II (adnitted by the Board on September 25,1980) that Applicant should be subject to the requirements of a class 103 licensee. Consequently, this centention should :=mni n at issue in these proceeding at least until such time as the class of license for this facility is determined. The final a:gument supportic6 the admissibility of subpart 5 is the fact that the Atomic Ihergy Act of 1954 and the code of Federal Re6ulation give certain preferences and benefits of doubt to reseach reactors because of the presumed hi6 h level of public benefit provided by these facilities.
To the extent that this preference is applied in any decision made by the Board in these licensing proceedings, it is proper for Interrener to place at issue the benefits research and otherwise that are actually provided the public by this facility.
CQiTIN'" ION XVII The remainder of this contentien is found in attachment 3 and its admission is supported by the Staff. 1his subpart is specific and is supported by adequate bases. Seismic vulnerability is a commen issue placed before the ASL3 in cases involvi 6 reactors in N *#ornia. Any analysis of seismic vulnerability is incomplete and enadequate unless it centains the most current infor=ation en seismic" activity in:4hexarea of the reactor, and the most current information en the ability of the reactor and the surrounding structures to withstand seismic activity.
2ds subpart does nothing more than place the adequacy of Applicant's consideraticn of the above questiens at issue in this proceedd.ng.
i l
19 CONTHi"ICN XIX l l
In orier to adequately analy::e the saf aty of a facility, one =ust ;
consider various accident scenarios and detenine the resulting danger to the public from such an occurence. This contention with great specificity places at issue the failure of the Applicant to consider several important hazard scenarios. Subpart one considers hazards created by sabotage.
Intervenor anticipates that either the Staff or the Applicant will oppose the admission of this contention on the grounds that it is a security question. This contention is not related to security. There is no assertien that Applicant must take, or has failed to take, measures to prevent such an occurence. Ihe contentien merely asserts that they should consider the consequences and damage created by such an act.
Subpart two meets all of the requirements for admission. Subpart three is the key to any adequate accident analysis because the ten design basis accident is the term of art supplied by the Staff as desc:ibing the worst possible chain of events at this facility. Subpart four is particularily important at this facility because of the fact that as a i
l l training and educational facility many inexperienced operators operate
- the reactor centrols.
CONT 3fTION XX l
Contentien IX and XXIV deal with the physical security of the facility.
- Due to the confidential nature of the physical security regulations and l
! Applicant's physical security plan, the Staff requested that Intervenor
! delay cubmission of security related cententions until the Staff could brief Intervenor on the nature of the regulations. The result of this l
l delay has been that cententions XX and XXIV Were not considered by the
I I
20 l l
l stipulation process. Ccnsequently, it is critical that any ruling on )
these two contentions not occur until Intertenor has had a chance to hear the grounds for any opposition that the other parties nay have to their admission.
Contention XX asserts: 1. that the facility has areas which should be protected a6ainst sabotage and theft; 2. that access to these areas should be restricted; and 3 that Applicant's physical security measures are inadequate to protect those areas from sabota6e and theft. The contention is very spscific in detailing which areas should be protected, which access points are vulnerable, and what security procedures, devices etc., are inadequate or lacki:6 These contentions are all supported by bases provided to the parties during the negotiation process. Interrenor contends that contention XX as it stands meets all of the requirements for admission.
CONTENTICN XXII This contention places at issue chan6es 1.n the Applicant's Technical Specification submitted as part of the license application from the specifications that currently exist at the facm ty. Interrenor contends that these changes reduce the level of protection provided the public health and safety. The centention is specific and its bases are the fact of the changes coupled .ith the reasons for their significance.
Interrenor asserts that there are no valid grounds on which to oppose the admission of this centention. Interrenor anticipates, however, that the Staff or the Applicant may oppose its admission on the grounds that it is duplicative of centention I.3.c. Contention I.3.c places at issue the fact that the changes and omissions in the technical specifications were undertaken despite the statement in the application that no such
21 changes had in fact been sade. This contention is conce::ned with the effect of those changes.
CONT 3PI' ION XXIII Contention XXIII places at issue tha fact that in its application the Applicant has indicated that it will submit plans to modify its facility by the installation of decay tanks, has fai'ed to submit such plans, yet uses the installation of the decay tanks as an illustration of its efforts to comply with ALARA. This contentien asserts that:
- 1. applicant cannot use promised future actions to support the issuance of a current license unless such future modifications become a condition to the license 2. the application makes inaccurate and contradictory i statenents regarding its future plars'to install decay tanks; and 3 that I if Applicant is to rely upon and utilize the instnation of decay tanks as a means of justifying the current license, that other modification of the facility, such as increa
- g the power and operating time of the facility, which have been proposed by the Applicant in public on several occaisions should also be considered in this licensing proceedirg.
Interrenor is not asserting that Applicant must apply for these modifications.
Intervenor is only contending that Applicant must either apply for such
^
=odifications or be barred from exploiting such improvements to the facility in this proceeding.
CCNT3TTICN XXIV Cententien XXIV is the second of the security related cententions.
As such it has not been considered or discussed by the parties. Interrenor anticipates that there may be sene questions raised about the applicability of sene of the regulations consideren in this enntention. If such is the
I 22 case, Inter /enor will request that an extension of time for drafting 1
this centention be provided because the contention is based on infor=ation l provided by the Staff and relied upon by Interrenor. The contention is very specific. It deals with the one and only shipment of spent fuel .
ever to originate fron this facility. Consequently, Interrenor believes that the incident provides an important insight into the ability of the Applicant to conform to applicable regulation, act in such a manner as to minimise any potential danger to the public, and otherwise handle and ship special nuclear materials. All of these matters are appropriate for Board consideration.
Dated: November 28 1980 3Y: S'. '
I'-
Mark S. pollock Atto::ney for Interrenor
DECLARATION OF SEc 3Y MAIL On the 28th day of November 1980, I have serted copies of the foregoing REUET FOR CONVHiriG A SPECIAL PREFEARDIG COTFERDICE and ETTERVETOR's STATDGIT OF FOSITION ON CONTHITIONS NOT STIFULATED TO IN THE NOVDt3ER 28,1980 STIIUIATION, 3Y mailing them tbmugh the United States mails, first class postage prepaid, on each of the following:
Elizabeth S. Bowers, ER. CbxMan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingten D.C. 20055 Dr. Emmeth A. Inehke Atonic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulator / Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulator / Commission Washnington, D.C. 20555 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director US Nuclear Regulator / Commission Washingten, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Sertice Section Cffice of the Secretar/
U.S. Nuclear Regulator / Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ghristine Helwick Glenn R. Woods Office of General Counsel 2200 University Avenue 590 University Hall 3erkeley, CA 94720 Dg % g , , yo - - ' ,, g gg - Y' L, l
l
_ _ . _ . . - _ _ ,