ML20023B780
| ML20023B780 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1983 |
| From: | Hodgdon A NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305060339 | |
| Download: ML20023B780 (23) | |
Text
.
~. - -.. - -.... _. ~. _..~..
.-t i
05/04/83 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPHISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND. LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-352 50-353 (LimerickGeneratingStation, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION / AIR AND WATER POLLUTION PATROL'S I.
SPECIFICATIONS OF CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED CONTENTIONS I.
INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the schedule established by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) in its " Memorandum and Order (Continuing Informal Discovery, Providing for Further Specification of Conditionally Admitted Contentions and Noting Dismissal of ECNP)" dated February 10, 1983, Limerick Ecology Action / Air and Water Pollution Patrol (LEA /AWPP), under cover of a letter dated April 12, 1983, filed their Specifications of f
Conditionally Admitted Contentions (Specification). The NRC Staff herein
[
files its response to LEA /AWPP's Specification.
i II. BACKGROUND In a Special Prehearing Conference Order of June 1,1982, the Board, among other things, conditionally admitted certain contentions which alleged a lack of infonnation.I/
1/
Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-43A, 15 NRC 1423 (1982) at 1483-1489.
D 0
0 2
' DESIG TED ORIGINAIl1 G
[
h
. M ified By ( / II M 0567
. ~..
Thereafter, in an Order dated October 20, 1982, the Board requested parties to jointly identify, in a report to be filed January 24, 1983, portions of the application for which information had not been fully provided by the Applicant prior to the Special Prehearing Conference but for which essentially complete information had subsequently been supplied.
In a letter report of January 24, 1983, the Applicant filed a listing of contentions regarding which it believed the information supplied was essentially complete. Subsequently, pursuant to an Order of the Board dated February 10, 1983, the Applicant filed a list of conditionally admitted contentions for which information was still pending together with a description of the scope of the pending information and an estimate of the date on which it would be filed.
Also, in accordance with the Board's Order of February 10, 1983 and its Order of March 21, 1983, the parties met and discussed the narrowing and specification of contentions. LEA /AWPP's " Specification" was filed on April 12,1983. As provided by the Board's March 21 Order, the Staff filed its Statement of the NRC Staff's Use of Limerick PRA on April 13, 1983. On April 27, 1983, the Applicant filed an " Answer to the Further Particularization of Intervenors' Conditionally Admitted Contentions" (Answer).
III. DISCUSSION A.
Standard For Admissibility Of Proposed Contentions 1.
The Commission's Rules of Practice require that "the bases for each contention [be] set forth with reasonably specificity." 10 C.F.R.
3-52.714(b). This regulation has been read to require "a reasonably specific articulction of its rationale -- e.g., why the Applicant's plans' fall short of certain safety requirements, or will have a particular detrimental effect on the environment." Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-50,15 NRC 566 at 570 (1982).
The Appeal Board recently addressed the dilema posed by the requirement that contentions be set forth with specificity in the face of the fact that documentation such as the Staff's environmental statement and the emergency plans is frequently not available when contentions must be filed, i.e., prior to the special prehearing conference. The Appeal Board concluded that "a licensing board is not authorized to admit conditionally for any reason a contention that falls short of meeting the specificity requirements"2/ but that "as a matter of law a contention cannot be rejected as -
untimely if it (1) is wholly dependent upon the content of a particular document; (2) could not therefore be advanced with any degree of specificity (if at all) in advance of the public availability of that document; and (3) is tendered with the requisite degree of promptnass once the document comes into existence and is accessible forpublicexamination.3]
The teaching of ALAB-687 as it applies to the situation with which this Board is confronted suggests that a ruling on proposed contentions that are premature in that they depend on information in a l
-2/
Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station), ALAB-687, 16 NRC l
(1982),Slipop.at11.
3/
ALAB-687, Slip op. at 16.
i
.,e,.==amem.ne.*
.-.qe-
.=ae===4.=%,=,-=.r-ea.ww r e + c...,+
gee-4
. e
- e
=-eu.--em-
=
=
..%.ep.-
. document not yet available should be deferredN or, in the alternative, rejected without prejudice to their timely resubmission upon the availabilityofthepertinentdocumentation.E In that regard, the Licensing floard i': Catawba supra stated:
As we see it, deferral versus ruFii; now is a discre-tionary judgment for the Board.
If, on the one hand, we had a large number of contentions for potential deferral, it might produce a net saving in Board time to defer; many such contentions probably would be withdrawn later and never have to be considered. On the other hand, deferred contentions are relegated to a procedural limbo and complicate the posture of a case that is complicated enough without them. Where, as here, we are dealing with only a handful of contentions, it is cleaner procedurally and therefore preferable not to defer -- to rule the contention in or out -- as we have done. Of course, new information contained in documents not yet available may later provide a basis for more specific contentions. Slip op. (December 1, 1982) at 6-7.
The Catawba Board's practice appears to be fundamentally consistent with the intentions announced in this Board's Special Prehearing Conference Order;6] thus, this Board should adopt that practice and reject without prejudice contentions which as originally submitted alleged only a lack of information and which continue to be inadequately specified at this time for that same reason.
-4/
See, Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), (September 22,1982) Slip op.
5]
See Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
(December 1,1982) Slip op.
-6/
In Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-43A, 15 NRC 1423 (1982) at 1488, this Board stated:
With respect to some contentions, the parties agree that the information has not yet been provided fully in PECo's (footnote ':ontinued on next page) g
._..__.-..._..___..._____._____.7_...__,..___.._.
=
= ~. = -
2.
In addition to the specificity and basis requirements of 5 2.714(b), another Commission regulation is relevant to a determination of the admissibility of contentions. Under 10 C.F.R. I 2.758, a party to a Commission licensing proceeding may not attack any rule or regulation of the Conmission, except by way of a petition requesting that the application of a specified rule or regulation be waived or an exception made for the particular proceeding.
4 B.
The Staff's Consideration Of The Admissibility Of The Newly Specified Contentions i
The Staff will address the contentions in numerical order:
l 1.
1-3.
In I-3, LEA contends that the generic BWR in WASH-1400 is not an appropriate surrogate for determining whether the risk from Limerick operation is disproportionate.
In its Answer to Supplemental Petition of Coordinated Intervenors dated December 7,1981, the Staff objected to LEA's proposed contention I-3 on the following grounds:
Limerick Ecology Action (LEA) seeks to litigate in this proceeding the representativeness of the generic BWR used in the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400). LEA has failed, i
6/
(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage) application documents.
In such instances, the contention is reasonably specific at the time in alleging the lack of information. However, when the information is provided, the contention will have to be made more specific and allege defects based on the information or allege in what respect the information is still insufficient. We have conditionally admitted such contentior.:.
It is requested that a conditionally admitted contention be made specific at the appropriate future time to be established based on the information later supplied by the Applicant. The failure to do this, or to explain why the contention then cannot be particularized further in light of the new information, will result in automatic dismissal of the contention.
however, to allege any way th which such an inquiry would be relevant to the Board's determination under 10 C.F.R. I 50.57 of whether there is reasonable assurance that the Limerick facility can be operated without endangering the public health and safety. Absent such an allegation, stated with basis, this contention should not be admitted.
The resubmitted contention does not supply the requisite basis correcting the asserted deficiency with a reference to either 10 C.F.R. 50.57 or to f
10 C.F.R. Part 51. Therefore, the Staff considers that LEA's I-3 is still inadmissible and that it should be rejected.
I-4.
In I-4, LEA asserts that the LGS-PRA should have considered pressure vessel failure.
In its Answer, the Applicant l
indicates that although pressure vessel failure was not considered in the PRA, it was analyzed in EROL Section 7.1.
LEA offers no basis to support j
its assertion that pressure vessel failure should be considered. LEA does
'l j
not assert a basis for concluding that such failure is a significant contributor to risk for Limerick. Nor is any other basis offered for concluding that pressure vessel failure should be considered in the LGS-PRA. LEA's I-4 should be rejected as lacking basis.
I-5.
This contention alleges that the radionuclide inventory i
assumed for Limerick may understate the cesium isotope inventory. Based on a telephone conference call among LEA counsel, Applicant's counsel and Staff counsel on April 25, 1983, the Staff understands that the LEA contention may be based on a mistake in the table for cesium in the PRA, a matter which is addressed in the Applicant's filing of April 27, 1983.
On its face, the contention is admissible except that the item numbered (4), Personal Comunication between Charles W. Elliott, Esq., and a.
I. A. Papazaglou, March 18, 1983, is non-specific in that the subject matter of the communication is not identified.
I-7.
As written, I-7 does not state a contention; it merely takes a statement regarding the scope of the fault tree model.
It is not sufficiently specific in that it fails to identify which subcomponent parts or which subpart level common mode failure LEA would have the Applicant consider in its PRA. LEA's I-7 should be rejected.
I-8.
Resubmitted I-8 is closely related to new Contention 3, discussed infra.
In I-8, LEA sets forth with adequate specificity its basis for contending that the risk associated with loss of offsite power is underestimated. The Staff regards I-8 as constituting an admissible contention.
1-10.
This contention states that both the LGS-PRA and WASH-1400 exclude consideration of location dependent common mode failures. The contention is overly broad:
it fails to say which location dependent common mode failures LEA would have the PRA consider. The Board should reject LEA's I-10.
1-11. This contention asserts that neither the PRA nor WASH-1400 considers the effect of equipment aging. The contention is non-specific in that it fails to identify the classes of components the effects of whose aging should be considered in the Limerick PRA. Nor does it suggest how such aging should be taken into account in a PRA. The contention should be rejected.
I-12.
LEA's I-12 does not state a contention; it merely asserts that no accounting is made for intentional or accidental errors.
It offers no basis for the inference that errors such as lack of rebar at
Trojan or misplacement of pipe reinforcements at Diablo exist at i')
Limerick. Nor does it state how licensee " penalty reports" might be used j
in an analysis of the contribution of construction errors to the risk of the plant. LEA's I-12 should be rejected.
I-14. This contention states that the Applicant should either use the technique of smoothing or use higher component failure rates to reflect the lack of data on failure rates in severe environments. LEA should identify the failures which the PRA does not address which in LEA's opinion should be considered. LEA's I-14, is, therefore, lacking a basis and should be rejected.
I-15.
This contention states that potential interfacing LOCA initiators may increase the risk of operation.
In its Answer of December 7, 1981, the Staff opposed LEA's I-15 as originally submitted as lacking in basis.
In its April 12 specification, LEA has added a-basis:
that BNL considers leakage past closed MSIV's during an accident to constitute a potential interfacing LOCA. The Staff considers LEA's basis to be sufficiently specific for the contention to be admissible.
I-16.
In I-16a and b. LEA asserts that the LGS-PRA fails to consider actual emergency response infonnation in that planning is based on a 10-mile radius evacuation model rather than the 25-mile radius model employed in the PRA and that the consequence model in the PRA is deficient in failing to employ available site-specific emergency response data. The Applicant in its Answer states that a 10-mile radius and a consequence model using site-specific data were employed in ER0L Section 7.1.
It is clear to the Staff that LEA has not yet had an adequate opportunity to examine EROL Section 7.1, which was not provided by the n
..-...v
~.
Applicant until after LEA filed its Specification. LEA should be given an opportunity to address ER0L Section 7.1 and to file contentions based on it.
1-21.
This contention states that the PRA should consider the possible increased risk from operation of Unit I during completion of construction of Unit 2.
However, LEA fails to state how that risk should be taken into account or, indeed, how the construction of the second unit increases the risk of operation of Unit 1.
Contention I-21 should be rejected as lacking in basis.
I-22.
In its I-22, LEA contends that the Applicant in its PRA should have justified its failure to consider any risk associated with interaction of the two Limerick units during operation.
In its Answer, the Applicant states that such interaction was " adequately considered."
The Staff agrees with the Applicant's Answer insofar as it reflects that LEA has not provided sufficient specificity and basis to permit a responding party to identify areas which are of concern to LEA. LEA's I-22 is overly broad and should be rejected.
1-23.
LEA asserts that the failure of the Limerick PRA to consider external events was " improper." The Applicant has now submitted an external event analysis, which LEA states cannot be factored into the PRA in any meaningful way. The Staff suggests that the Board should reject I-23 as lacking basis.
I-26.
This contention states that the LGS-PRA's use of shielding factors for sheltering is not warranted. The subject matter is generally admissible; however, the contention is premature in that the DES is the
relevant document. The Board should reject I-26 without prejudice to its being resubmitted after issuance of the DES.
I-30. This contention states that the LGS-PRA should have considered malignant thyroid nodules with fatal outcome. The contention is based on adequate specification and in the Staff's view is admissible.
I-31.
I-31 is lacking in basis in that it does not identify a source for the assertion that Philadelphia will not be used as a support resource. Accordingly, as written, the contention should be rejected.
2.
New Probabilistic Risk Assessment Contentions In addition to the resubmitted contentions concerning the Applicant's PRA, LEA has now submitted five "new" contentions, four of which reference the Brookhaven review of the Applicant's PRA, NUREG/CR-3028. However, LEA has not addressed the five factors required by 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a)(1) of intervenors proposing nontimely contentions. The factors are:
(i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
(ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
(ii)
The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record, (iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be i
i represented by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
w
LEA has made no showing of good cause for the nontimely submission nor hasitaddressedtheotherfourfactorssetforthini2.714(a)(1).E Accordingly, the Staff does not address the weighing of these factors in determining whether LEA's new contentions would be acceptable.
In the Staff's opinion, these contentions should be denied for failure to address the i 2.714(a)(1) factors.
Although the Staff regards LEA's failure to address the five factors of 6 2.714(a)(1) as ample reason for rejecting its late contentions, especially in view of the fact that the Board indicated in its Order of February 10, 1983 that conditionally admitted contentions would be fully admitted or rejected in light of ALAB-687,8_/ the Staff will address the merits of each of the proposed new contentions.
1_.
LEA's new Contention I seems to relate to I-7 in that it focuses on what it asserts to be evidence of a lack of realism in'the modeling of accident sequences in the LGS-PRA. Under(a),LEAstates that in quantifying accident sequences, the Applicant underestimated interfunctional dependencies by failing to lock together functional fault trees corresponding to different functions. LEA fails to identify the y
In ALAB-687 the Appeal Board stated that in the instance of a contention that was rope for filing within the period prescribed by the Rules of Practice, the determination whether to accept it on an untimely basis involves consideration of all five Section 2.714(a) factors. However, according to the Appeal Board, where the non-existence or public unavailability of relevant documents made it impossible for a sufficiently specific contention to have been asserted at an earlier date, that factor must be deemed controlling.
ALAB-687 slip, op at 17. The ALAB-687 " rule" requires that LEA show I
at a minimum that its five new contentions are dependent on the BNL review.
8]
Order at 4.
l l
_.__.-..m._,_.~
fault trees of concern. The contention is vague and lacks a specific basis.
Ia b), LEA states that errors of logic were made in some system fault trees that significantly affect system unavailability values.
Again, the contention is nonspecific in that it fails to identify the system fault trees in which errors in logic were allegedly made.
In c), LEA speculates that if certain unidentified support systems which were not considered in the LGS-PRA had been considered, functional dependencies significantly affecting the probability of core melt might have been uncovered.
As basis for its three part Contention 1, LEA cites to two NUREG documents but does not indicate how information to be found in those documents relates to the assertions made regarding the modeling of accident sequences in the LGS-PRA. This very vague contention, 'if indeed it is a contention, lacks basis and should not be admitted.
2.
This contention alleges that the LGS-PRA uses improper procedures for the binning of accident sequences. LEA's new Contention 2 lacks specificity in that it fails to identify which sequences were improperly binned, which accident sequences were improperly classified.
l and which containment event trees were improperly constructed. Ncr is any basis given for LEA's assertion that the result obtained from smoothing is more realistic than the result obtained where smoothing is not done. LEA cites Section 6 of the BNL review, NUREG/CR-3028, as support for its Contention 2.
However, LEA fails to identify in what way information to be found there bears on LEA's assertion that the L
procedures used in the LGS PRA were faulty. LEA's contention 2 should be rejected as failing to state a basis with requisite specificity.
3_.
LEA's new Contention 3 is related to Contention I-8, in that it concerns the treatment to be accorded loss of offsite power in the Limerick PRA. New Contention 3 lacks specificity in that it fails to identify which partial LOOP occurrences it contends were improperly excluded from the operating experience data base.
In a memorandum of March 4,1983, from Themis Speis, Director, Division of Safety Technology, to Darrell Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, which was sent to the Board and parties under cover of Board Notification Number 83-25 on March 4,1983, the treatment to be given to loss of offsite power headed the list of "open items" left for Staff resolution after the completion of the BNL review. Given the fact that the Staff has indicated its intention to address the matter in an evaluation i
l report, the Board should deny the contention without prejudice to its being resubmitted after the issuance of the relevant Staff document.
4.
This contention states that the LGS-PRA's use of a 1973 i
l ANSI standard for decay heat instead of the 1979 standard results in I
understatement of the total energy released. But for the fact that good l
cause for the nontimely submission of this contention has not been shown, l
the Staff considers new Contention 4 to be an acceptable contention.
However, it should not be admitted as LEA has not shown good cause for lateness.
s l
5.
LEA's new Contention 5 seems to relate to I-3 in that both concern the total risk from operation of Limerick as compared with the l
total risk from the WASH-1400 generic BWR.
In new Contention 5, LEA l
l l
.u u.2.r.; ; - -. =
.:. u _..
contends that Limerick should not be granted an operating license or, in the alternative, that any license granted should be conditioned to reduce risk. LEA seems to be contending that when the BNL corrections are applied to the LGS-PRA, Limerick is seen to represent an undue and disproportionate risk. Contention 5 is sweeping in scope, totally lacking in basis and non-specific in failing to identify a specific basis in the Comission's regulations for license denial.
It should be rejected.
3.
LEA's Contentions other than those relating to PRA.
I-33.
This contention concerns certain TMI Action Plan " requirements" of NUREG-0737 and consists of a number of sub-parts. The Staff addresses the " requirements" of NUREG-0737 and their litigability in operating license proceedings as a background against which to address the sub-parts of this contention.
In Statement of Policy; Further Comission Guidance for Power Reactor Operating Licenses, CLI 80-42, 12 NRC 654 (1980), the Comission determined that operating license applications should be measured by the NRC Staff against the regulations as augmented I
i by the requirements of NUREG-0737 and that the list found in NUREG-0737 should be the principal basis for consideration of TMI-related issues in l
the adjudicatory process. With regard to the litigability of TMI-related Action Plan items, the Comission stated:
The " Clarification of Action Plan Requirements" in NUREG-0737, like the TMI-related " Requirements For New Operating Licenses" in NUREG-0694, can, in terms of their relationship to existing Comission regulations, be put in two categories:
(1) those that interpret, refine or quantify the general language of existing regulations, and (2) those that supplement the existing regulations by imposing requirements in addition to specific ones already contained therein.
Insofar, as the first category-
==
=..
15 -
refinement of existing regulations-is concerned, the parties may challenge the new requirements as unnecessary on the one hand ~or insufficient on the other within the limits of the regulations.
Insofar as the second category-supplementation of existing regulations-is concerned, the parties may challenge either the necessity for or sufficiency of such requirements.
(Emphasisadded) 12 NRC at 160.
In Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear PowerPlant, Units 1and2)CLI-81-5,13NRC361(1981), the Comission issued further guidance regarding the litigation of TMI-related issues in licensing proceedings as follows:
Parties are generally free to raise issues of compliance j
with NRC regulations, subject to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 specificity and lateness requirements, where applicalbe, and standards for reopening records, wnere applicable.
l This holds true for TMI-related issues, and nothing in the j
Revised Policy Statement affects this....
l Where the new evidence [or proposed contention] raises no issue of compliance but rather questions whether there is adequate protection despite compliance with all applicable regulations, a party has two procedural options under the Revised Statement of Policy. First, a party may challenge the sufficiency of an item in the NUREG documents.
However, the scope of the inquiry under this option is limited to the particular safety concerns that prompted i
the specific " requirements" in NUREG-0694 and -0737. What we had in mind was allowing a party to focus on the same safety concern that formed the basis for the NUREG requirement and litigate the issue of whether the NUREG
" requirement" is a sufficient response to that concern.
Contentions which address a safety concern not considered l
in NUREG-0694 and -0737 shall not be entertained as challenges to the sufficiency of those requirements.
l l
Second, where the contention or new evidence cannot be associated with a safety concern identified by NUREG-0694 or -0737,10 C.F.R. 2.758 may be used to bring the matter to the Commission's attention without prior litigation on i
the merits.
In this situation, a party must first make a L
prima facie case to the Board that application of a given rule in this particular proceeding would not serve the i
l purpose for which that rule was adopted. If the party is l
able to make this case, the Comission will determine whether that rule will be waived or an exception made from t
j its requirements in that case.
f
- - ~.
--.a,
,,--,n
,.--,.-,.-n,--
1.
LEA's I-33 is unfocused in that it is not always clear which of the two positions LEA is assuming in any of the sub-parts of I-33. For l
the most part, LEA seems to be alleging that compliance with the time frame established in NUREG-0737E/willnotadequatelyprotectthepublic health and safety.
In view of LEA's failure to focus its resubmitted contention I-33, the Staff believes that it should be rejected at this time without prejudice to its resubmission after the relevant document from the Applicant becomes available.
"A", "B", "E" and "K".
The Applicant has noted in its Answer that infomation regarding these items was incomplete as of March 1, 1983.El These sub-parts should, therefore, be denied without prejudice to refile after relevant infomation becomes available. With regard to Sub-part "B", the Staff notes that the Board in its SPC0 directed' LEA to break down that sub-part into separate subjects when specification is supplied.
15 NRC at 1495.
"C" IntheStaff'sopinionLEA'sI-33(C)failstosetfortha basis with specificity.
In "C", LEA asserts that Item I.C.1 of the Action Plan has not been adequately addressed, but fails to identify l
wherein the alleged inadequacy lies.
I-33(C) should be rejected.
-9/
The time for a required action varies with the NUREG-0737 item; for example, some actions are to be taken four months in advance of OL issuance, others at fuel load or at the first refueling outage.
M/ Answer at 37.
m 1
"D" This contention alleges that Applicant's response to Action Plan Item I.G.1 is inadequate. As in "C." LEA has failed to set forth with specificity a basis for asserting that the Applicant's description of additional training and testing is inadequate.
I-33(D) should be rejected.
"G" LEA's resubmitted Contention I-33(G) is unchanged.
In "G," LEA contends that Applicant should comply with Reg. Guide 1.97, Rev. 2 regarding the classification of the reactor vessel level indication as safety grade.
In an FSAR revision of January 1983, the Applicant indicated compliance with Reg. Guide 1.97, Rev. 2.
LEA has failed to take account of infomstion provided since I-33(G) was conditionally admitted. The contention should, therefore, be rejected.
"M" LEA'snewContentionI-33(M)statesthatApplicant's feasibility and risk assessment study for modifying ADS actuation logic to eliminate the need for manual actuation for assuring adequate core cooling as required by NUREG-0737 Item II.K.3.18 has not been conducted and that the Applicant has stated that modifications resulting from the review will be deferred until the first refueling outage. LEA asserts that the Applicant should be required to justify the delay. NUREG-0737 identifies the first refueling outage as the appropriate time for such modifications. Therefore, Applicant's proposal is in compliance with NUREG-0737. LEA has not stated e specific basis in support of its opinion that health and safety demands that modifications be undertaken earlier. LEA's I-33(M) should be rejected.
I-38.
Like I-33, I-38 addresses a NUREG-0737 item, Item II.B.3.
In I-38, LEA contends that post-accident monitoring equipment should be able
. - -. =. -
i.
to operate in environments associated with accidents beyond DBA-LOCA.
However, NUREG-0737 Item II.B.3 states: " Accident conditions should assume a Regulatory Guide 1.3 or 1.4 release of fission products."
Apparently, LEA considers that assumption to be insufficient. However, LEA has not indicated a basis for assuming releases. greater than those in Reg. Guide 1.3.
If it was LEA's intention to challenge the sufficiency of Item II.B.3 " requirements," LEA should have focused its challenge to the NUREG-0737 item. LEA's I-38 fails to meet the standards set out in Diablo Canyon, supra.
It should be rejected.
I-41(a) and (b).
InI-41(a)and(b),LEAaddressesunresolved Safety Issues A-17 and A-47. The contention is premature in that it alleges an inadequacy in the Staff's as yet unwritten Safety Evaluation Report. The Board should reject I-41 without prejudice to its being refiled after the SER becomes available. See Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), LBP-82-19,15 NRC 601 at 604-612(1982). See also Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), slip op. (September 13,1982)at 26-27, denying because of prematurity contentions concerning USI's and Shearon Harris, supra, slip op., at 66-67, deferring consideration of contentions concerning USI's until after issuance of the Staff's SER.
I-42.
LEA's I-42 does not seem to be a contention.
It merely tracks the Commission's new regulation regarding Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety, 48 Fed.
Reg. 2739 (January 21, 1983), 10 C.F.R. 9 50.49. Section 50.49 requires the preparation of the list which LEA would have the Applicant prepare.
l However, it does not require that it be prepared within the time frame l
t l
E
~
~ ~ '
~
..-..=z
~ -
which LEA suggests is necessary. The Applicant indicates in its Answer (at 40) that the list will be submitted in May,1983. Section 50.49 does not require an earlier submission.
In view of the fact that the Applicant is required to conform with 5 50.49, LEA's speculation that failure to comply will threaten the health and safety of the public is without basis.
I-42 should be rejected.
1-45.
LEA's statement that Applicant has comitted to incorporate features consistent with alternative 3A requirements of Volume 4, e
NUREG-0460, Anticipated Transients Without Scram for Light Water Reactors, does not constitute a contention. LEA need not reserve the right to review the features to which the applicant comits after Section 15.8.5 becomes available. Consistent with ALAB-687, if any new contention submitted by LEA wholly depends on Section 15.8.5 of the Applicant's FSAR, such a contention cannot be rejected as untimely.
I-45 as written does not constitute a contention; the Board should reject it.
I-59.
In its SPC0, the Board stated that:
This contention [I-59] is not a very clear indication of l
what LEA wants to litigate. However, we can discern that LEA is asserting that the methodology used by the Staff i
(and presumably the Applicant) in deciding which spectrum of accidents to design against is not rationally based nor technically justified and is therefore inadequate to provide reasonable assurance that the design criteria of the regulations have been met.
So construed, the contention is conditionally admissible.
It can and should be better specified after the Applicant's and Staff's method of review of the accident design of the Limerick plant is disclosed by the further I
progress of those review, iA mding possible application of the review of the PRA. Wher. specified, the contention should make clear the defects alleged in the methodology, the regulations which therefore may not be met, and the changes or improvements which LEA alleges should be made in the accident design analyses. 15 NRC at 1508.
=
As an added basis for its resubmitted I-59, LEA encloses a page from a March 11, 1983 memorandum from the NRC Staff to the Applicant.
The page seems to indicate that the Staff questions whether Limerick meets the regulatory standard, not whether a regulatory standard exists.
The Staff is unable to perceive a nexus between the bare assertion and the documentation provided as basis. The contention is not properly focused and should be rejected as lacking specificity and basis and as failing to provide the clarification required by the Board in its SPCO.
I-60.
LEA asserts that additional engineered safety features should be required for Limerick because of the relative density of the population. However, the acceptance criteria t,nic h LEA would have such additional features meet are not specified.
I-60 should be rejected as lacking in basis.
4.
Quality Assurance Cor.tention of Air and Water Pollution Control (AWPP)
VI-1.
AWPP's resubmitted quality assurance contention fails to state what quality assurance issues AWPP wishes to litigate.
It alleges the existence of a pattern of careless workmanship. Yet the list of inspection reports supplied as basis does not on its face establish such l
a pattern.
In (a), AWPP cites faulty welding procedures in 1976 but fails to take into account the resolution of the items it cites as basis.
AWPP's VI-1 fails to show any nexus between the list it provides and the broad allegation that the Applicant's QA program is not in compliance with Appendix B.
l
~
....--.. =:..... ? -..... - - - -
':__ u L.:....~
The list which AWPP provides under (b) does not, contrary to AWPP's assertion, identify a pattern of noncompliance. Indeed, the list merely sets out without discussion the subject matter of a number of IE Inspection Reports.
AWPP's request to be allowed the opportunity to further specify its QA/QC contention after further discovery flies in the face of the Comission's rules regarding the admissibility of contentions,10 C.F.R. 5 2.714. The Commission's Rules of Practice do not permit the filing of a vague, unparticularized contention, followed by an endeavor to flesh it out through ditcovery againtt the applicant or staff. ALAB-687, supra, slipop.at13,10C.F.R.92.740(1).
Further, AWPP's reference to Bechtel's cleanup of TMI-2 is totally irrelevant to the construction of Limerick; the Board on April 12, 1983 denied a new contention alleging that the Limerick operating license should be denied because TMI-2 has not yet been cleaned up. AWPP's broad and vague Contention VI-1 should be rejected as failing to state a basis with requisite specificity.
i IV. CONCLUSION As indicated above, the Board should admit or reject the contentions submitted by I.EA and AWPP.
Respectfully submitted, e
-% Q. %d cut.
~
Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of May 1983 I
i i
~
^
=. = ; s.u...
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tti!SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (LimerickGeneratingStation.
)
Units 1and2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION / AIR AND WATER POLLUTION PATROL'S SPECIFICATIONS OF CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED CONTENTIONS" 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 in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, or, as indicated by a double asterisk hand delivered, or as indicated by triple asterisk by express mail, this 4th day of May 1983:
- Lawrence Brenner, Esq., Chairman (2)
Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Administrative Judge Vice President & General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Philadelphia Electric Company Washington, D.C.
20555 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101
- Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge
- Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Conner and Wetterhahn 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
- Dr. Peter A. Morris Washington, D.C.
20006 Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Washington, D.C.
20555 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, PA 19149
- Mr. Frank R. Romano Air and Water Pollution Patrol James M. Neill, Esq.
61 Forest Avenue Associate Counsel for Del-Aware Ambler, PA 19002 Box 511 Dublin, PA 18917
- Judith A. Dorsey, Esq.
Limerick Ecology Action Joseph H. White III 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1632 8 North Warner Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19107 Bryn Mawr, PA.
19010 l
e Thomas Gerusky, Director Thomas Y. Au Bureau of Radiation Protection Office of Chief Counsel Dept. of Environmental Resources Dept. of Environmental Resources 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Building 505 Executive House Third and Locust Streets P. O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Director Steven P. Hershey, Esq.
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Law Center North Central Agency Beury Building Basement, Transportation & Safety 3701 North Broad Street Building Philadelphia, PA 19140 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Robert J. Sugannan, Esq.
Robert L. Anthony Sugarman and Denworth Friends of the Earth of the Suite 510 Delaware Valley North American Building 103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 121 South Broad Stmet Moylan, PA 19065 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Alan J. Nogee Donald S. Bronstein, Esq.
The Keystone Alliance The National Lawyers Guild 3700 Chestnut Street Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19104 1425 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Charles W. Elliott, Esq.
123 N. 5th Street, Suite 101
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Allentown, PA 18102 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 W. Wilson Goode Managing Director
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal City of Philadelphia Panel Philadelphia, PA 19107 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conr;ission Washington, D.C.
20555 Walter W. Cohen Consumer Advocate
- Docketing and Service Section Office of Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1425 Strawberry Square Washington, D.C.
20555 Harrisburg, PA 17120 VL4.1 Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel NRC Staff