ML20023A790
| ML20023A790 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1982 |
| From: | Oneill J CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023A773 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8210200021 | |
| Download: ML20023A790 (17) | |
Text
--
b a
October 15, 1982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter'of
)
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN
) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
50-401 OL
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' OBJECTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION RELATING TO THE BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (REFLECTING DECISIONS MADE FOLLOWING PREHEARING CONFERENCE)
Pursuant to the Commission's Rules at.lO C.F.R.
5 2.715a(d) and the Board's September 22, 1982 Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Prehearing Conference)
(" Order"), Applicants Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency hereby file objections and requests for clarification regarding the Order.
Applicants also'wish to bring to the Board's attention additional information concerning Applicants' plans with respect to the proposed Cape Fear River intake facility and the use of Cape Fear River water in the Harris Plant reservoir.
82102000Ri
CAPE FEAR RIVER INTAKE FACILITY By letter dated June 3, 1982, from M.
A. McDuffie to H. R.
Denton, in response to NRC Staff " Final Environmental Report Review Questions," Applicants informed the NRC of their plans to cancel the Cape Fear River intake facility (makeup water pump station) and associated pipeline.
Because of the cancel-lation of Harris Units 3 and 4, Applicants believed that the availability of makeup water from the Cape Fear River would not be required to ensure adequate reservoir volume.
- Thus, Applicants, in responding to certain of intervenors' proposed contentions regarding the impacts of the Cape Fear River facility or the impact of makeup water from the Cape Fear River in the Harris reservoir, took the position that the cancel-lation of the facility mooted those issues.1/
Additional study of the reservoir volume has revealed that without the ability to provide makeup water from the Cape Fear River, during conditions of severe doughts of record and with both Harris Units 1 and 2 operating, technical specification limits for operations might be reached that would require the shutdown of the Plant.
Because of the substantial economic consequences of such an unplanned outage of one Harris unit 1/
See Applicants' Response to Supplement to Petition to Intervene by Conservation Council of North Carolina, dated June 15, 1982, at 5, and Applicants' Response to Supplement to Petition to Intervene by Richard D. Wilson, M.D.,
dated June 15, 1982, at 7. -
even once over the operating life of the two units, Applicants have decided to reinstate their plans to construct the Cape Fear River intake facility and associated piping prior to initial operation of Harris Unit 2.
This change in plans is being communicated to the NRC Staff by letter dated October 15, 1982, from M.A. McDuffie to H.
R.
Denton.
This change in plans may impact on the Board's decisions regarding certain contentions in the Order.
In particular, CCNC Contention 12 was admitted, except that the reference to the Cape Fear River intake facility was deleted.
Applicants now do not object to admission of CCNC Contention 12 as originally drafted by CCNC.
Similarly, Applicants do not object to the admission of Wilson Contention I(e), which the Board had found moot since the Cape' Fear River facility had been cancelled.2/
2/ Applicants do not in any way concede the proposition which forms the predicate of Contention I(e),
i.e.
that Cape Fear River water is " heavily contaminated by upstream manufacturing and textile effluents."
However, Applicants believe that Dr.
Wilson has adequately raised the issue with sufficient basis and specificity to be admissible as a contention.
In addition, Wilson Contention I(f4) mentions the Cape Fear River water.
However, Applicants do not read the statement denominated I(f4) as raising an issue different than the two issues covered by Contention I(e) and Contention I(fl-3).
Rather, I(f4) appears to be additional argument in support of those two contentions.
OBJECTIONS TO CONTENTIONS EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 15 The Board accepted the portion of Eddleman Contention 15 which addresses capacity factors employed in Applicants' cost-benefit analysis.
The Board noted, however, Applicants'
' intent to revise the cost-benefit analysis in its Environmental Report to conform with the new "need for power" rule, and to -
include in the analysis a range of capacity factors.
Order at 42.
Elsewhere, however, the Board deferred ruling on a similar contention until such time as Applicants amend their ER.
See id. at 28 (CHANGE Contention 78(a)).
Applicants submit that the Board's ruling on the CHANGE contention was correct, and that the.similar portion of Eddleman Contention 15 should be deferred.
The ER amendment will be available yet this year, and discovery in the meantime would not be productive.
EDDLEMAN CONTENTIONS 64(f) and 64(g)
At Contention 64, subparts (f) and (g), Mr. Eddleman alleged that the safety valves on spent fuel casks are likely to unseat or that the plastic components of the valves would melt in a fire, and that Applicants' shipment casks are 1
- dangerous because they have never been tested physically.
Applicants responded that Mr. Eddleman had not provided any j
basis with the requisite specificity for his bald assertions L
-n
,.n.,
nv-
m, r
and that transportation of the spent fuel will be carried out pursuant to the applicable Commission regulations, especially those set out with particularity in 10 C.F.R. Part 73.3/
The Board faulted Applicants for not directing the Board's t
attention to the specific rule governing cask specifications and testing requirements and accepted the two contentions.
Order at 56-57.
The physical protection of special nuclear material in i
transit is governed by 10 C.F.R. Part 73.
Such material must meet the packaging standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 71, Subpart C.
Specificall?, casks for shipment of spent nuclear fuel,must meet the general standards for packaging described in 10 C.F.R.
S 71.31; the standards for normal conditions of transport set forth in 5 71.35; and the standards for hypo-thetical accident conditions set forth in 5 71.36.
The NRC prescribes rigorous physical testing standards for casks which manufacturers must meet in order to license their casks.
Appendix A to Part 71 specifies the testing criteria for normal j
transport and Appendix B specifies the testing criteria for hypothetical accident conditions.
The licensee of a licensed cask must perform the surveillance requirements prescribed by
$ 71.54 on each cask prior to each shipment, including checking c
3/ Applicants' Response to Supplement to Petition to Intervene by Wells Eddleman, dated June 15, 1982, at 78.
l i I
all valves, and can be directed by the NRC to perform periodic tests on the casks, pursuant to 5 71.63.
Carolina Power & Light Company ("CP&L") owns a series IF-300 rail cask. licensed under NRC Certificate of Compliance 9001.
CP&L utilizes this rail cask in its spent fuel ship-ments.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 71.51, CP&L has established and 1
maintains a quality assurance program to ensure all required I
testing is performed.
Pursuant to its NRC Certificate, CP&L must perform certain annual tests and preshipment tests on the cask (including therma 1 performance reviews and hydrostatic tests).
Applicants plan to use CP&L's existing cask or another cask properly licensed by the NRC for any spent fuel shipments to Harris.
Mr. Eddleman has not provided any basis for an assertion that CP&L will not comply with the specific requirements for spent fuel packages or that in meeting these requirements, any risk to the health and safety of the public is likely to occur.
Absent providing basis with reasonable specificity as to why Applicants will not comply with the Commission's rules, Mr.
Eddleman's attack can only be characterized as an attack on the Commission's rules themselves.
Thus Eddleman Contention 64(f) and 64(g) must be rejected. a
=-
EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 67 At Contention 67, Mr. Eddleman asserted that "the lack of an assured disposal site for low-level Harris rad [ioactive]
l waste endangers the health and safety of the public under [the l
Atomic Energy Act] and needs to be considered in the envi-1 ronmental balance under [the National Environmental Policy Act]."
As the basis for this contention, Mr. Eddleman noted that the three states with low-level waste disposal sites
[
(South Carolina, Nevada, and Washington) have refused to j
continue to accept unlimited amounts of low-level radioactive wastes.
In addition, he alluded to the Low-Level Radioactive j
Waste Policy Act, which provides that states may enter into compacts as necessary to provide for the establishment and f
operation of regional disposal facilities for low-level j
radioactive wastes and eventually to exclude wastes from states not members of such compacts.
42 U.S.C. 5 2021(d).
Applicants responded that the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, which directs each state to provide for the safe disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within its boundaries -- either by establishment of a disposal facility within the s' tate or by compact with other states on a regional basis,. stands in contradiction to Mr. Eddleman's assertions that there will be no disposal site for low-level waste from i
the Harric Plant.
Furthermore, Applicants responded to Mr.
Eddleman's NEPA arguments by noting that the situation l
l '
+
suggested by Mr. Eddleman -- in effect that the states would fail to comply with the mandate of the United States Congress
-- was remote and speculative and need not be explored.4/
The Board stated, however, that " Applicants do not deny Mr. Eddleman's assertion that neighboring states will not accept low level waste from North Carolina; instead, Applicants assert that North Carolina is responsible for providing and therefore will provide such a site."
Thus the Board stated its view that "some specific provision should be made for low level waste disposal." The Board admitted Eddleman Contention 67 only as it relates to health and safety.
Order at 58-59.
Applicants respectfully object to the Board's ruling on this contention.
In part, we believe that the Board may have misconstrued our argument and we take this opportunity to restate our position more clearly.
Applicants emphatically deny that neighboring states will not accept low-level waste from North Carolina.
In any event there is no requirement in the Atomic Energy Act or the Commission's regulations for an Applicant to demonstrate "some specific provision has been made for low-level waste disposal."
Finally, Contention 67 simply daes not raise an issue of health and safety.
4/
Applicants' Response To Supplement To Petition To Intervene by Wells Eddleman, dated June 15, 1982, at 79-80.
In Applicants' Response to Eddleman Contention 67, we pointed out that there presently exists a low-level waste disposal site accepting such wastes in the State of South Carolina, that South Carolina was obviously in the region of the country which includes the Harris Plant, and that the mandate of the Congress to the states to provide for regional compacts for low-level waste disposal would appear to contra-dict the basis asserted by Mr. Eddleman for his contention.5/
While Mr. Eddleman has provided no basis for his asser-tions, Applicants need not, in any event, demonstrate specific provisions have been made for low-level waste disposal.
The Appeal Board has had occasion to address the very issue raised 5/
Since Applicants filed their June 15, 1982 Response, representatives of the states eligible for. inclusion in the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Waste Compact (South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama and Mississippi) have negotiated an agreement on a method of disposal of low-level wastes in their region in the form of a draft Compact.
While the legislatures of the states involved and the Congress must approve the Compact, the agreement estab-lishes a comprehensive framework for regional cooperation.
Significant among the agreements reached by the staten involved was the understanding that South Carolina will continue to accept low-level wastes from states within the Coupact at the Barnwell disposal facility, until December 31, 1992.
A second facility, in a state as yet'undesignated, must begin operation prior to December 31, 1991. See 28 Atomic Energy Clearinghouse No 38, 16-17 (September 20, 1982).
Applicants believe that the progress made thus far toward implementation of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act by the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Waste Compact provides reasonable assurance that disposal sites will be available to accept low-level waste from the Harris Plant.
This stands in contravention of the assertions made by Mr. Eddleman as the basis for Contention 67.
l by Contention 67.
In Florida Power & Light Company (Turkey i
Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos. 3 and 4), ALAB-660, 14 N.R.C.
987, 1010-1012 (1981), the Appeal Board reviewed the decision of the Turkey Point Licensing Board to grant summary disposition of an intervenor's claim that extended on-site storage of low-level waste generated by steam generator repairs was unacceptable.
In deciding this issue the Appeal Board specifically referred to the uncertainty regarding low-level waste disposal sites, including the volume limitations imposed by the state of South Carolina.
The Appeal Board held that the overriding legal issue there was much the same as is presented by the uncertainty regarding prolonged on-site storage and eventual disposal of spent fuel -- in both instances the legal issue under the Atomic Energy Act is whether the Commission has reasonable assurance that the wastes can b'e ' safely handled and stored as they are generated, and safely disposed of when, from j
I a public health and safety standpoint, that is likely to become l
necessary.
The Appeal Board pointed out that, in the context I
of high-level radioactive wastes, the Commission has already determined that nuclear power plant licensing should not be postponed until a waste disposal facility was in operation, or until the safety'of waste disposal was found to be assured.
See 42 Fed. Reg. 34391 (July 5, 1977).
The Commission's decision in this regard was upheld on judicial review.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 582 i
F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1978). i
f The Appeal Board noted that "the volume limitations imposed by the low-level burial site at Barnwell, South Carolina and the tightness of space elsewhere are not nearly as troublesome a problem as the absence of a high-level waste disposal facility."
14 N.R.C.
at 1011.
The technology for low-level waste disposal has been demonstrated over a number of decades, existing low-level waste repositories are accepting wastes, and measures have been taken by Congress to ensure additional low-level waste repositories are established in the future.
Since a significant proportion 'of low-level wastes are generated by hospitals and medical research facilities, in addition to society's interest in the power and operating cost savings from generation of electricity from nuclear power plants, there are critical segments of society dependent on the
~
availability of low-level waste disposal f'acilities.
- Thus, there is every reason to believe the states will act responsi-bly in carrying out the mandate of Congress.
It would be an aLsurd result to hold that uncertainties regarding high-level waste disposal need not be considered but assurance of low-level waste disposal must be demonstrated in a licensing proceeding.
The Appeal Board in Turkey Point rejected that proposition.
Finally, no health and safety issue has really been raised.
There is no allegation that low-level waste will not be handled properly.
There is no challenge to low-level waste._
1 disposal technology.
If political decisions resulted in all low-level, waste disposal sites being shutdown and there were no sites available for low-level waste disposal, the Harris Plant could simply shut down and stop generating low-level wastes.
-There is no requirement that Applicants demonstrate that "some specific provision has been made for low-level waste l
disposal," just as there is no requirement that Applicants 1
demonstrate that some specific provision has been made for
}
disposal of spent fuel or high-level radioactive wastes.
The Atomic Energy Act requires a finding of reasonable assurance i
j that the public health &nd safety will be protected.
Keeping l
that standard in mind, Contention 67 must be rejected.
l 1
REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION The Board deferred rulings on a number.of proposed 4
j contentions until necessary documents are available.
qee Order at 7, 8.
A significant number of the deferred contentions a
await the availability of the NRC Staff's environmental impact i
statement prepared pursuant to NEPA and 10 C.F.R. Part 51.
The Staff prepares and distributes for comment a draft envi-ronmental statement (or " DES"), followed by a final envi-j ronmental statement (or "FES").
In most cases, the Board's Memorandum and Order makes it clear that with respect to
]
contentions deferred for the Staff's environmental impact t
statement, an intervenor's obligation to submit original 12-i i
+-
v-e r-+---r--
=m-ev,-
+y-nm,--m--
p
,----,we,pe-w ww--
,y,-
r ~ ~ ~ - -
a-.,,,v
,~---rw-
~
contentions for ruling, or to withdraw, revise or add to those contentions based upon new information arises with the availability of the draft impact statement.
- See, z._q.,
order at 8, 15 (Kudzu Contention 3),.23 (CHANGE Contention 8), 38 (Eddleman Contention Ba), 45 (Eddleman Contention 25), 70 (Eddleman Contention 126X).
In a few specific rulings, however, the Board refers to the availability of the "FES."6/
See Order at 27 (CHANGE Contention 72), 47 (Eddleman Contention 34), 48 (Eddleman Contention 36), 54 (Eddleman Contention 61A),
70 (Eddleman Contention 126).
Applicants are aware of no basis for allowing intervenors to 1gnore the DES and, as to certain contentions, wait until the FES is issued prior to confirming their contentions, if any.
Neither do we believe that it was the Board's intent to establish different requirements for these contentions.
Consistent with NEPA procedures and goals, the DES should be the subject of any relevant contentions.
Applicants therefore respectfully request the Board to clarify its Order to require that all contentions. deferred for the Staff's environmental impact statement must be advanced by intervenors, as provided i
at page 8 of the Order, within 30 days after receipt of the DES.
6/
See also Order at 48 (" draft FES").
s l i
[
_ _ _ _ ~,
a
CCNC Contention 4, as drafted, concerns " environmental, safety, and health effects of transportation of radioactive wastes and other. material from (Robinson and Brunswick] to [the Harris Plant]".
It also refers to concerns regarding the safety risks of "long-term storage," including " assurances for safe storage at the expiration of the proposed licensing period."
The Board accepted one " aspect" of the contention, which Applicants understand to relate only to previously unanalyzed environmental impacts resulting from Applicants'
" plans to store Robinson and Brunswick spent fuel at Harris."
See Order at 19, 20.
As Applicants read CCNC Contention 4, the only allegations regarding environmental impacts relate to spent fuel transportation.
The Board proceeded to observe that the Staff intends to perform this analysis in its draft environmental statement, and stated that "CdNQ should review the draft when it is available and revise or withdraw its contention, as appropriate."7/
CHANGE Contention 9 deals only with the Cavironmental effects of the transportation of spent fuel t'o Harris from CP&L's Robinson and Brunswick Plants.
The Board characterized 7/
With respect to transportation of spent fuel from Robinson and Brunswick to Harris, the Board held that the impacts should be factored into the NEPA analysis in this case.
Order at 19.
The Board also tentatively decided that Table S-4 can be applied to this situation, and stated that it would reconsider the question when the Staff's DES becomes available.
See id.
at 20.
this contention as one concerning " environmental effects of spent fuel storage and [which] is similar to CCNC [ Contention]
4."
Order at 23.
The Board accepted CHANGE Contention 9.
It is not entirely clear to Applicants what aspect of CCNC Contention 4 has been accepted.
We believe that the Board's intent was to accept a contention regarding the previously unanalyzed environmental impacts of cpent fuel transportation from Robinson and Brunswick to the Harris Plant.
Similarly we would understand CHANGE Contention 9 to deal with only the environmental impacts of spent fuel transportation, except for the reference to " storage" in the Board's discussion of this contention.
Thus, we request that the Board clarify its intentions regarding its acceptance of CCNC Contention 4 and CHANGE Contention 9.
If these contentions are to focus upon'the Staff's analysis, nowever, Applicants submit that these contentions should be deferred rather than accepted at this t.ime.
There would appear to be no point in proceeding with discovery on the issue in advance of the Staff's DES.
The Board stated that "Eddleman [ Contention] 132 on control room analysis, which both Staff and Applicants found acceptable, is accepted."
Order at 72.
Neither Applicants nor i
the Staff agreed, however, to Contention 132 as pleaded by Eddleman.
The original version for the contention contained mixed allegations concerning the instrumentation to detect
~
+
inadequate core cooling.and the purported absence of a human
~ factors review of the control room.
In their response, Applicants objected to the instrumentation allegation because it did not address available information, and agreed to new contentions on the human factors review after Applicants make their control room design review. report available to Mr.
Eddleman.g/
See Applicants' Response to Supplement to Petition to Intervene by Wells Eddleman, dated June 15, 1982, at 145, 146.
In his June 28 Amendments, Mr. Eddleman presented specific information on reactor vessel level instrumentation as a means to detect inadequate core cooling.
Applicants
-thereupon agreed to a proposed reformulation of Eddleman Contention 132, to state that:
Applicants have failed to provide the design for a direct water level indicator for the reactor vessel.9/
It is Applicants' reformulation to which the NRC Staff agreed.
See Tr. 448-49.
g/ Wilson Contention IV.B was deferred on this basis.
See Order at 33.
9/
See also CHANGE Contention 44. _
o Applicants therefore request that the Board clarify its ruling on Eddleman Contention 132 to specify the issue (s) which have been accepted for litigation.
9 Re ec #ully
- ubmittod, 1
Ob M
Georbe F.
Trowbridge, P.Cl [
Thoma s A.
- Baxter, P.C.
John H. O'Neill, Jr.
( )
SEAW PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBMDGE 00 M Street, N.W.
Was ington, D.C.
20C36 (202) 822-1000 Richard E.
Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA ~ POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.
O.
Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-7707 Dated:
October 15, 1982 i
9
%