ML20008F128
| ML20008F128 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308 |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1981 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103120317 | |
| Download: ML20008F128 (11) | |
Text
'
/e t
A igpr g&
s s
(
a MAR 1119816 1 3'II'8I
'6A"Tggyr=
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vb g
NUCLEAR REGULATOP,Y COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the ibtter of
)
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC C0ftPANY)
)
Docket No. 70-1303
)
(Renewal of SNM-1255)
(GE Morris Operation Spent Fuel
)
Storage Facility)
)
NRC STAFF STATEt1ENT OF POSITION ON THE ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS OF INTERVENOR R0REti, ET AL.
On December 8,1980, the Licensing Board issued an " Order Granting Stay of Proceeding" (Order).
The Board's Order responded to the request of Intervenor the State of Illinois for ; stay of further proceedings until 30 days after the effective t3te of new 10 CFR Part 72, " Licensing Require-ments for the Storage of Spent Fuel in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installa tion".1/
In its Order, the Board stated that since Part 72 is now the controlling regulat on in this license renewal proceeding, "it appears i
appropriate that additional time be granted for filing of amended conten-tions, replies thereto, and any further discovery which might be appro-priate under the new Part 72".
Order at 2.
In its Order, the Board also adopted a schedule to control future proceedings, which was subsequently amended by the Board in " Order Ruling on 110 tion to Amend" (February 19, 1/ 10 CFR Part 72 became effective on December 12, 1980, 45 Fed.
R_eg. 78623 (November 26,1980).
8108120 M
e,
1981). As amended, the schedule established February 26, 1981 as the date by which "any proposed amendments to contentions" are to be filed.
Under the amended schedule, resoonses to amended contentions are to be filed by liarch 10, 1981.
In a document dated liarch 1,1981, Intervenor Rorem, et al. (hereaf ter "Intervenor" or "Rorem, et al.") filed " Additional Contentions of Rorem, et al. (hereafter " Additional Contentions").2/ Rorem, et al. state that "they do not desire any modification or amendment of previously accepted contentions".
Additional Contentions, at 1.
The Staff herewith files its response to the Additional Contentions of Rorem, et al.
DISCUSSION In the "NRC Staff's Statement of Position On The Contentions of Bridget Rorem, et al. (hereafter " Staff's Statement of Position"), Novem-ber 20, 1979, the Staff included a discussion of certain legal principles which the Staff believes should govern consideration of contentions.1/ In 2/ The Board orally granted the request of Rorem, et al. for an extension of time until fiarch 2,1981, in which to file additional contentions.
The additional contentions of Rorem, et al. were not received by Staff counsel until fiarch 9,1981.
Accordingly, on itarch 9,1981, Staff counsel orally requested an extension of time until tiarch 13, 1981, in which to file the Staf f's response to these additional contentions.
Staff counsel stated, however, that the Staff would attempt to file its response prior to fiarch 13, 1981. The Board orally granted the Staff's request for an extension of time, which the Staff has confirmed by letter to the Board dated fiarch 10, 1981.
1/ ee Staff's Statement of Position, supra,Section II, " General Principles S
Governing Admission of Contentions", at 3-5.
th2 Staff's view, thase principles also apply to consideration of the addi-tional contentions of Roren, et al. With particular reference to the filing of proposod amended contentions (in view sf the pronulgation of new Part 72 of 10 CFR), the Staff has pointed out that "should the Intervenors seek to amend their contentions, they will have to file a notion requesting permission from the Board pursuant to 10 CFR Q 2.714(a)(3), which requires that the factors in 10 CFR 6 2.714(a)(1) be addressed".
See "NRC Staff Answer to 1) flotion of The State of Illinois to Stay Proceedings and
- 2) !!otions of General Electric Company For Sanctions Against Rorem, et al.
oud The State of Illinois For Failure to Comply With Discovery", October 29, 1980, at 5, fn.6.
In this regard, the Staff notes that in the Additional Contentions, supra, Roren, et al. does not address these factors.
The failure of Rorem, et al to even address these factors, much less to persuasively show that a balancing of these factors favors admitting the proposed additional contentions, would be sufficient grounds to deny admission of the additional contentions of Rorem, et al. While not waiving this deficiency, the Staff has considered the proposed additional conten-tions to deternine whether they meet the requirenent in 10 CFR Q 2.714(b) that the bases for each contention be set forth with reasonable specificity.
Based on the foregoing, and as set forth below, the Staff believes that all of the Additional Contentions (Additional Contentions A, B, C and D) fail to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 5 2.714(b) and, accordingly, should not be admitted as issues in controversy in this proceeding. The Staff's position with respect to each of these contentions is set forth seriatim.
t.
Additional Contention _A The CSAR fails to fully evaluate potential impact on the environment of spent fuel being transported into the area, such evaluation being required by 10 CFR 72.70.
Citizens of Illinois, or other states, who live along transportation routes for spent fuel, have a right to be protected from ham caused by a nuclear transportation acci-dent.
The Emergency Services and Disaster Agency (ESDA) of Illinois does not even pretend that it is now able to cope with a transportation accident: "It will probably be a couple of years before we get around to developing a specific plan for nuclear transportation accidents." (ESDA information officer Chuck Jones, as quoted by Star Newspapers, 9 October 1980.)
Staff Position The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it is vague and lacks adequate basis and fails to alert the parties as to the matters sought to be litigated.
10 CFR 6 72.70 requires that:
"The proposed ISFSI [ Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation] shall be evaluated with respect to the potential impact on the environnent of spent fuel being transported into the area."
The Applicant has included in its amended application and in the revisions to the Consolidated Safety Analysis Report (CSAR) which were submitted after promulgation of 10 CFR Part 72 a discussion of the environmental impacts of the transportation of irradiated fuel.S/ Rorem, et al. fails to allege or indicate in what manner the discussion of the transportation of irradiated fuel is deficient in this regard.
Accordingly, SI See Applicant's Amendment Application, Attachment D, Section D7.2 (January 1981) and CSAR (NED0-21326C), Revision C3, Section 3.8 (January 1981).
4
=
. 0 Additional Contention A lacks adequate basis and fails to alert the parties as to the matters sought to be litigated.
In addition,10 CFR 6 72.70, which is cited in the contention, does not appear to apply to GE itorris.
10 CFR 6 72.70 is part of Subpart E (of 10 CFR Part 72), " Siting Evaluation Factors".
Pursuant to 10 CFR s 72.31(c):
"For facilities that have been covered under previous licensing actions including the issuance of a C'nstru:: tion Pemit under Part 50 of this chapter, a reevaluation of the site is not required except where new infomation is discovered which could alter the original site evaluation findings.
In this case, the site evaluation factors involved will be reevaluated".
Since GE Morris has a license issued by the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, GE llorris is "a facility that [has] been covered under previous license actions" within the ceaning of 10 CFR S 72.31(c).
Thus, application of 10 CFR 5 72.70 (which is part of Subpart E of Part 72, " Siting Evaluation Factors") is not required, absent new information.E Rorem, et al. has alleged no such new information.
Based on the foregoing, the Staff opposes adnission of Additional Contention A.
E n addition, the Supplementary Infomation accompanying the publi-I cation of 10 CFR Part 72 in the Federal Register, 45 Fed. Reg. 74693 (November 12,1980) indicates that the transportation of spent fuel is to be considered only as part of the evaluation of' site suitability.
45 Fed. _ Reg. 74697.
In particular, it is stated that:
26.
Transportation Considerations.
A number of com-menters considered that the transportation involved in spent fuel shipments to an ISFSI could be an important consideration in an evalsation of site suitability. This might be parti-cularly true of a large installation.
The Commission agrees and a new 9 72.70 has been added to the rule to specifically address this point.
Id.
Additional Contention B The CSAR does not adequately describe decontamination and decommissioning procedures, as required by 10 CFR 72.18, so as to provide reasonable assurance for A.
Health and safety of the public.
B.
Firiancial ability to carry out such procedures.
Staff Position The Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it is vague and lacks basis and fails to alert the parties as to the natters suught to be litigated.
The Staff agrees that the application for a license pursuant to 10 CFR Part 72 nust show that the Applicant will have the neces-sary funds available to carry out estimated shutdown and deconmissioning costs, and the necessary financial arrangements to provide reasonable assur-ance prior to licensing that shutdown, decontamination and decommissioning will be carried out after the renoval of spent fuel from storage.
10 CFR 1 74.14(e)(3).
In addition, the Applicant's plan nust contain sufficient infornation to provide reasonable assurance that decomnissioning and decon-tamination of GE tiorris after the end of its useful life will provide adequate protection to the health and safety of the public.
10 CFR Q 72.18.E E The Staff has already obtained information from the Applicant in this regard and will continue to obtain information from Applicant concern-ing Applicant's decommissioning plan and Applicants' financial qualifi-cations. The Staff's evaluation of Applicant's decomnissioning plan is contained in the Environmental Impact Appraisal of this licensing action.
See " Environmental Impact Appraisal Related To The Renewal of liaterials License SNM-1265 for the Receipt, Storage and Transfer of Spent Materials License SNM-1265 for the Receipt, Storage and Transfer of Spent Fuel, Morris Operation, General Electric Company, Docket No. 70-1308," NUREG-0695, June 1980. The Staff's evaluation of Applicant's financial quali-fications will be published in the Safety Evaluation Report.
Applicant's Decamnissioning Plan is contained in Appendix A.7 to the CSAR. With respect to Applicant's financial qualifications, Attachnent E of Applicant's amended application (January 1981) consists of a copy of the General Electric Company's Annual Report for 1979 (the most recent report).
Financial arrangements related to doconmissioning are discussed in Appen-dix 4.7 to the CSAR (as revised, January 1981), Section A.7.5.3.
- Rorem, et al. has failed to indicate in what manner the Applicant's Decommissioning Plan in the CSAR and related infor. nation does not " adequately describe decon-
+
tamination and decommissioning procedures", and accordingly, Additional Contention B is vague, lacks adequate basis and fails to alert the parties dS DO th3 natters sought to be litigated.
For these reasons, the Staff l
opposes the admission of Additional Contention B.
i
_ Additional Contention C The CSAR does not adequately describe or evaluate such man-induced events as nay be precipitated by the transpor-tation and storage of damaged spent nuclear fuel.
Specifically, intervenors are concerned that licensing of the G.E. Morris Operation under 10 CFR 72 does not preclude the storage there of damaged nuclear fuel such as that in the
. core at Three Mile Island 2.
Staff Position The Staff opposes admission of this contention on the grounds that it is vague, lacks adequate basis and fails to alert the parties as to the matters sought to be litigated.
. The contention alleges, in essence, that the transportation and storage of spent fuel which has been damaged at another facility is a "significant man-induced event" affecting the facility's design, which,
" describe and evaluate".
In this regard, it should first be noted that the CSAR specifically provides that shipnent to the Morris Operation of spent fuel known to be defective and leaking is not permitted.E Rorem e_t al.
has not provided any basis for contending that the Morris Operation will involve the transportation and storage of damaged spent fuel in general, or the " core at Three Mile Island 2",
in particular.
Further, Rorem, et al.
fails to allege or indicate in what nanner the CSAR discussion at p.7-5 is deficient in this regard. Accordingly, Additional Contention C lacks adequate basis and fails to alert the parties as to the matters sought to l
be litigated.
In addition,10 CFR Q 72.63,8_/ which is the relevant regulation, does not appear to apply to GE Norris.
10 CFR S 72.63 provides (in pertinent
- iart) that
"the region shall be exanined for both past and present man-nade facilities and activities that might endanger the proposed ISFSI [ Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation].
The important potential nan-induced events that affect the ISFSI design shall be identified".
10 CFR 9 72.63(a).
t E ee "Conso idated Safety Analysis Report [CSAR] for Morris Operation, S
January 1979, at p.7-S.
In the unlikely event that fuel not known to be defective is in fact received -at the Morris Operation, the CSAR identifies the procedures which would be followed with regard to such fuel.
Id.
E 10 CFR l 72.63 is part of' Subpart E (of 10 CFR Part 72), " Siting Evaluation Factors".
9_
Pursuant to 10 CFR 6 72.31(c):
"For facilities that have been covered under previous licensing actions including the issuance Of a Construction Permit under Part 50 of this chapter, a reevaluation of the site is not required except where new informtion is discovered which could alter the original site evaluation findings.
In this case, the site evaluation factors involved will be reevaluated".
Since GE Morris has a license issued by the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, GE iiorris is "a facility that [has] been covered under previous license actions" within the meaning of 10 CFR 6 72.31(c).
- Thus, application of 10 CFR 6 72.63 (which is part of Subpart E of Part 72,
" Siting Evaluation Factors") is not required, absent new information.
Rorem, et al. has alleged no such new information.
Furthermore, by its terms,10 CFR 6 72.63 requires exanination of the region _ for past and present man-made facilities and activities and not, as Additional Contention C asserts, that the CSAR " describe or evaluate such man-induced events as may be precipitated by the transportation and storage of damaged spent nuclear fuel".
1 Based on the foregoing, the Staff opposes admission of Additional Contention C.
Additional Contention D License to receive, handle, store and transfer spent nuclear fuel.should be granted to the G.E. fiorris Operation only for such time as it operates with its present storage capacity.
Intervenors feel that if a license to expand is sought by General Electric, the whole faro lty should undergo a new licensing procedure, inasmuch hs conditions presented in the CSAR will no longer be applicable.
=.
1,
Staff position The Staff opposes admission of this contention on the grounds that it lacks adequate basis, is speculative and raises an issue which is beyond the scope of this proceeding.
First of all, Roren, _et al. has not provided any basis for contending that in the application of General Electric Co.
'or renewal of the license to operate GE Morris, General Electric Co. is seeking to expand the present storage capacity of the iforris Operation.
Further, the scope of this prGceeding is limited to determining whether the license of the General Electric Co. to operate the GE !! orris Operation, with its present storage capacity, should be renewed.
An issue concerning whether a license may be sought to expand the storage capacity is beyond a
the scope of this proceeding.
Any increase in the storage capacity of the facility would require an anendment to the facility license and would be the sub.iect of a separate licensing action.
Based on the foregoing, the contention must be re,iected.
CONCLUSION I
For the reasons stated above, the Staff opposes the additional conten-tions of Rorem, et al. and urges that the Licensing Board deny admission of these additional contentions.
Respectfully submitted, h kN Mar.forie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, liaryland this lith day of March,-1981
4 UNITED STATES OF A*tERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.'t:1ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the itatter of
)
GENEDAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket No. 70-13D3 (Renewal of SNM-1265)
(GE ltarris Operation Spent Fuel Storage Facility
]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF STATEMENT OF POSITION ON THE ADDITIO @L CONTENTIONS 0~ INTERVENOR ROREM, ET AL. in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit la the Nuclear Regulatory Coanission's internal nail system, this 11thday of flarch,1981:
Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq., Chairman Ms. Bridget Little Rore-Administrative Judge Essex, IL 60935 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 3320 Estelle Terrace Edward Firestone, Esq.
Kneaton, MD 20906 Legal Operation General Electric Company Dr. Linda W. Little 175 Curtner Avenue i
Administrative Judge Mail Code 922 5000 Hermitage Drive San Jose, CA 95125 Raleigh, NC 27612 Mr. Everett Jay Quigley Dr. Forrest J. Remick R.R. I Box 378 Adninistrative Judge Kankakee, IL 60901 305 East Hamilton Avenue State College, PA 16801 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- John Van Vranken, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Office of the Attorney General Washington, DC 20555 18; West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Chicago, IL 60601 Panel (5)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ronald Szwajkowski, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 Matthew A. Rooney, Esq.
Mayer, Brown & Platt Docketing and Service Section (7)*
231 South LaSalle Street Office of the Secretary Chicago, IL 60604 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, DC 20555 07%% U.lkw /d7;-. :.. :4 Marjor4e Ulman Rothschila Counsel for NRC Staff
_ _,