ML19350B157
| ML19350B157 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308 |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1981 |
| From: | Rooney M GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., MAYER, BROWN & PLATT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103200015 | |
| Download: ML19350B157 (7) | |
Text
'
Dated:
March 10, 1981 g
ft UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(,y NUCLEPR REGULA'IOR" COMMISSION
_7_
3.
I -]
(
-[
s BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/
At In the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-1308
)
Consideration of Renewal of
)
Material License No. SNM-1265
)
g.
Et
-Issued to G.E.
Morris
)
s Operation Spent Fuel Storage
)
4' Installation.
)
OCgg7pn 3
hq 6-N49 0,q,hggf 7
RESPONSE OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY TO THE CONTENTIONS OF B
- 41
[
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS B.
/
This constitutes the response of applicant General Electric Company (" General Electric") to the additionally-proposed and the originally-admitted contentions propounded by the State'of Illinois (" Illinois").
The former proposed-additional contentions are contained in a submittal dated February 25, 1981.
PROPOSED-ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS OF ILLINOIS General Objections General Electric _ objects to each proposed contention 1 I
through 5 inclusive, on the ground that each should be stricken for failure.to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 92.714(a) because each contention lacks specificity and failt to set forth an adequate basis.
810 3200 DIS g
Specific Objections Proposed-Additional Contention 1 states:
"The CSAR does not provide necessary financial arrangements to provide reasonable assurance that decontamination and decommissioning will be carried out as required by 10 CFR 5572.14(e)(3) and 72.18 in that the applicant's projected costs do not take into account the costs of complete removal of all radioactive materials nor of complete restroration of the facility to unrestricted use."
This contention should be stricken because the CSAR complies with 572.14(e) and 72.18.
Those regulatory provisions do not require General Electric to take into account "the costs of complete removal of all radioactive materials" or "of complete restoration of the facility to unrestricted use."
Accordingly, this contentior is an attac A on existing regulations and should be stricken, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 92.758.
Moreover, the regulation as promulgated requires a showing of reasonable assurance that funds will be available to cover. estimated shutdown and decommissioning costs, and that the decommissioning plan will provide-adequate protection to the health and safety of the public.
This contention does not in any way demonstrate that General Electric has
-not complied with those regulations, nor is there any basis for Illinois so to contend.
Proposed-Additional Contention 2 states:
"The CSAR does not identify.and evaluate all significant external man-induced events affecting the facility's design as required by 10 CFR 572.63 in that' it does.not identify or evaluate the transportation, receipt, handling or storage of spent fuel which has been damaged at another facility.
-2
This contention should be stricken, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.758, because it is an impossible attack upon the validity of existing regulations.
The condition of fuel in transit is not a " man-induced event" contemplated by 10 C.F.R. 572.63 and is not relevant to the analysis in the CSAR.
This contention should also be stricken because the CSAR complies with 10 CFR 572.63.
That regulation requires identification of man-induced events in the region of the ISFSI for siting and design purposes.
All past and present man-made facilities, activities and events that might endanger the Morris operation, including transportation of spent fuel to and from the operation, are considered in the CSAR.
Procosed-Additional Contention 3 states:
"The CSAR does not provide the safe control of the facility under off-normal or accident conditions as required by 10 CFR 572.72(j) in that it does not provide for adequate access to and from the control room during and after release of radiation in excess'of 10 CFR Part 20 within the facility."
i
, _., ~.,
This contention should be stricken, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
$2.758, as an impermissable attack upon the validity of existing regulations.
The referenced regulation does not require access to and from the control room during off-normal or accident conditions, but only requires design of control room or control areas to provide safe control during these conditions.
The contention should also be stricken because the CSAR complies with 10 C.F.R. 572.72(j).
Access to and from the control room (which is nevertheless assured by alternative access features) is not essential for safe control during off-normal or accident conditions.
The CSAR establishes that the Morris Operation can be left unattended for extended periods of time without endangering the public health or i
safety.
Finally, the contention should be stricken as vague and ambiguous because it is unintelligible, since 10 C.F.R.,
Part 20, prescribes no limit for " release of radiation" in i
l the facility, but rather establishes dose limitations.
Proposed-Additional Contention 4 states:
i l
" Applicant's operator training and certification I
program is inadequate-to insure safety as required by 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart I in that Applicant's program fails to:
-(a)
Establish any minimum academic requirement; and l
(b)
Establish any criteria or numerical standards for passage-or failure of testing and verifi-cation requirements."
This contention should be stricken as an impermissable attackLupon the validity of existing regulations, pursuant,
-,n
, * - - s v
~
--w g
to 10 C.F.R. 52.758.
Section 72.92 and related regulations include no requirement that the training and certification program include any academic requirement or any numerical standards for test performance.
General Electric's operation, training and certifi-cation program complies with 10 C.F.R. 572.92'.
The regulation requires training nd certification of personnel operating 1
equipment and controls important to safety and their supervisors, with which requirement General Electric complies.
Proposed-Additional Contention 5 states:
" Applicant's Technical Specifications do not comply with 10 CRF 5572.16 and 72.33 in that nothing therein precludes applicant from receiving, handling and storing damaged spent fuel and nowhere has Applicant identified, analyzed or evaluated such receipt, handling or storage of damaged spent fuel in accordance with any section of 10 CFR Part 72."
This contention should be stricken, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.758, as an impermissable attack on the validity of existing regulation.
Nothing in 10 C.F.R.;$$72.16 & 72.33 requires that ISFSI' Technical Specifications preclude receipt, handling or storage of damaged fuel.
Moreover, General Electric's Technical Specifications provide for identification and' evaluation of potential damage to fuel prior to unloading; Illinois has identified no deficiency in those specifications.
'l ORIGINAL CONTENTIONS OF ILLINOIS General Electric has reviewed each contention, previously admitted by this Board, which was originally proposed by Illinois (l(a) and 2 through 7).
Each should be now stricken from this proceeding in view of promulgation of 10 C.F.R.,
Part 72.
Each of the referenced contentions in no way relates to regulatory requirements under Part 72, which now govern this proceeding.
Accordingly, they are now irrelevant.
Moreover, to the extent that each contention is an attack on existing regulations each should ba stricken, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.758, as beyond the scope of'this proceeding.
The burden to restate previously admitted contentions, if it were ever possible, so as to relate them to this proceeding under Part 72 was incumbent upon the State of Illinois.
It has failed to discharge that burden.
- Indeed, its refusal to do so must be construed.as a tacit adnission that it could not discharge its duty to the Board and the other parties to this proceeding.
The previously admitted contentions should be stricken.
Respectfully submitted, OF COUNSEL:
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPAFI
- ) gl[WI
' 'N
'Mayer, Srown & Flatt f
N 231 South LaSelle Street By:
Chicago, Illinois 60604 Ronald W. Szwajkowski /
(312) 782-0600
-Matthew A.
Rooney Its Attorneys UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 70-1308 Consideration of Renewal of
)
Materials License No. SNW-1265)
Issued to GE Morris Operation )
Fuel Storage Installation
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that he served c copy of RESPONSE OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY TO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, in the above-captioned proceeding on the following persons by causing the said copies to be deposited in the United States mail at 231 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, in plainly addressed and sealed envelopes with proper first class postage attached before 5:00 P.M.
on March 10, 1981:
Andrew C.
Goodhope, Esq., Chairman Susan N.
Sekuler, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board George William Wolff, Esq.
3320 Estelle Terrace Office of the-Attorney General Wheaton, Maryland 20906 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Dr._ Linda W.
Little Chicago, Illinois 60601 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5000 Hermitage Drive Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Forrest J. Remick Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 305 East Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal
_ Commission Panel Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section office of the Secretary Fridget L. Rorem U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Essex, Illinois 60935 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Everett J. Quigley R.R.
1, Tax 378 Kankakee, Illinois 60901 g
Matthew A.
Rooney
/
.