ML20024C712
| ML20024C712 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1983 |
| From: | Bachmann R, Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8307130085 | |
| Download: ML20024C712 (24) | |
Text
.
l l
7/11/83 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
)
Docket No. 50-508 OL
)
(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 31
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO C0ALITION FOR SAFE POWER SUPPLEMENT TO REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE I.
INTRODUCTION In a " Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Petition For Leave to Inter-vene)," April 21, 1983, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) ruled on the late-filed " Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene", of the Coalition for Safe Power (CFSP). That petition was filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714, in response to a notice of oppor-tunity for hearing in the Federal Register (47 Fed. Reg. 40,736-38, September 15,1982) regarding the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) operating license application for WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3 (WNP-3). The Board's Order provided that CFSP file a supplement to its request for hearing containing a list of specific contentions set forth in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b).
In a subsequent " Memorandum and Order (Schedule for Special Prehearing Conference)," May 16, 1983, the Board adopted the schedule recomended by the Applicant, the Staff and CFSP for the submission of proposed contentions, responses and the time and place for holding the special prehearing conference.
In accordance with that schedule, on June 15, 1983, CFSP filed " Supplement of Coalition DESIGNATED ORIGINAL EkoNo$odb certified B7 U
(
0 PDR
/(
. for Safe Power to Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene",
(Supplement). The Staff response to the CFSP Supplement is set forth below.1/
II.
DISCUSSION A.
Legal Principles Governing the Statement and Admission of Contentions Contentions may be admitted in a Comission licensing proceeding if they fall within the scope of issues set forth in the Federal Register notice of opportunity for hearing and applicable Commission case law.
See, e.g., Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island, Unit Nos. I and 2),
ALAB-197, 6 AEC 188, 194 (1973), affirmed, BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir.1974); Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley, Unit No. 1), ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 245 (1973); Philadelphia Electric Co.
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974).
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(b), Intervenors are required to file "a list of contentions which petitioner seeks to have litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity." An Intervenor who fails to file at least one contention which satisfies the requirements of 6 2.714(b) will not be permitted to participate as a party. A contention must be rejected where:
(1)
It constitutes an attack on applicable statutory require-ments;
-1/
The schedule adopted by the Board provided for the Applicant's response to CFSP's supplement to be filed by July 6, 1983 and the Staff's response to be filed by July 11, 1983.
. (2)
It challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (3)
It is nothing more than a generalization regarding the Intervenor's view of what applicable policies ought to be; (4)
It seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or (5) It seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.
Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974). The purpose of the basis requirement of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) is (a) to assure that the matter sought to be put into question does not suffer from any of the infirmi-ties set forth in Peach Bottom, supra, at 20-21, (b) to establish suffi-cient foundation to warrant further inquiry into the subject matter and (c) to put the other parties sufficiently on notice "so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." Peach Bottom, supra, at 20.
At the early stages of a proceeding, initial contentions need only I
identify the reasons for each contention. See, Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11NRC542,548(1980).
In addition, the basis stated for each conten-tion need not " detail the evidence which will be offered in support of each contention." Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973). Accordingly, in examining contentions and the basis therefore, a licensing board may not reach the merits of contentions.
Id_.; Peach Bottom, supra, at 20.
i Nevertheless, the basis for contentions must be sufficiently detailed and specific (a) to demonstrate that the issues raised are admissible
. - -. and further inquiry into the matter is warranted ahd (b) to put the parties on notice as to what they will have to defend against or oppose.
This is particularly important at the operating license stage, where a hearing is not mandatory, in order to assure that an asserted conten-tion raises an issue which clearly is open to adjudication. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (William H. Zimer Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-305, 3NRC8,12(1976); Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974); River Bend, ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 768-69(1977).
In addition, a board is not authorized "to admit conditionally for any reason, a contention that fills short of meeting the specificity requirements." Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-687,16NRC460,467(1982).E The NRC's Rules of Practice do not permit "the filing of a vague, unparticularized contention, followed by an endeavor to flesh it out through discovery against the applicant or Staff." Id. at 468.
Finally, a licensing board has no duty to recast contentions offered by a petitioner to remedy the infirmities of the type described in Peach l
-2/
No party petitioned the Commission for review of ALAB-687. However, because of the potential pervasive impact of that decision on NRC practice, the Coninission sua sponte took review on two issues not related to the quoted material, but rather to the good cause factor in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(71 as applied to the admission of late-filed contentions based on the institutional unavailability of licensing-related documents. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), Chl-83-19, NRC (Slipopinion, June 30,1983).
l
. Bottom, supra, for which they may be rejected, in order to make inadmis-sible contentions meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714. Comon-wealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-226, 8 AEC 381, 406 (1974). Should a Board nevertheless elect to rewrite a petitioner's inadmissible contentions so as to eliminate the infirmities which render
.~
the contentions inadmissible, the scope of the reworded contentions may be made no broader than the bases that were previously provided by the petitioner for the inadmissible contentions. Cleveland Electric Illumi-nating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-675, 15 NRC 1105,1114-16 (1982).
B.
CFSP Contentions CFSP 1 Petitioner contends that there is no reasonable assurance that WNP-3 will be "substantially completed on a timely basis" as required by 10 CFR part 2, Appendix A,Section VIII(b)(1).
The Staff objects to the admission of CFSP Contention 1.
The thrust of 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix A,Section VIII(b)(1) is not that the facility must be "substantially completed, on a timely basis,"
but rather that it be "substantially completed, on a timely basis, i_nn conformity with the construction pennit and the application as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Comis-sion." (emphasisadded.) In CFSP Contention 1, Petitioner has not identified any specific nonconformance with any provision of the construc-tion permit, the Act or the rules and regulations.
If Applicant fails to complete the facility on a timely basis, its construction permit, if not extended, will expire and there will be nothing further to' litigate.
l
-__ l Clearly, Contention 1 does not raise an issue that is suitable for liti-gation and it is inadmissible.
CFSP 2 Petitioner contends that Applicant has neither adequately nor correctly assessed the potential releases of radionuclides from WhP-3 during normal, transient and accident conditions, nor the somatic, teratogenic and genetic effects of the ionizing radiation.
Applicant thus fails to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34; 50.36, 20.103, 20.203, and Appendix I of Part 50 and, further, underestimstes the human cost of the project in the cost-benefit analysis required by 10CFR51.21,51.20(b)&(c)and51.23(c).
The Staff objects to the admission of CFSP Contention 2.
It neither alleges nor provides a basis for an allegation that the errors, if indeed such exist, in assessment are sufficient to tilt the cost-benefit balance against issuance of the operating license. Accordingly, the contention is not admissible.
CFSP 3 Petitioner contends that Applicant has not shown that safety-related electrical and mechanical equipment and components will be environmentally qualified at the onset of operation and throughout the life of the plant such that there is adequate assurance that the requirements of General Design Criteria 1, 2 and 4 of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A are satisfied.
The Staff objects to admission of Contention 3 as vague and, in part, grounded upon bases which are in part objectionable.
A final Environmental Qualification rule was approved by the Comis-sion on January 6, 1983. 48 Fed. Reg. 2729 (January 21,1983). The rule requires that applicants for operating licenses that are to be granted prior to November 30, 1985 perform an analysis to ensure that the plant can be operated safely pending completion of equipment qualification and
. submit the analysis to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) before the license is granted.
10 C.F.R. 6 50.49(i). Applicants for operating licenses are not required to demonstrate compliance with the final rule until March 31, 1985 at the earliest. The Director of NRR can extend this deadline to November 30, 1985 and, in exceptional cases, the Commission can grant extensions beyond the November 30, 1985 deadline.
As a result, there is no deadline for the environmental qualification of equipment that it is within the authority of the Licensing Board to enforce. Consequently, this contention does not pose a litigable issue.
In the first paragraph of the bases, CFSP challenges the adequacy of accelerated aging testing methods used by the Applicant for environ-mental qualification. The bases for the contention lack the requisite specificity required by 10 C.F.R. Q 2.714. CFSP alleges that the effect of radiation on polymers used in seals, rings, gaskets and cable insula-tion and jackets has been underestimated. However, in that connection, CFSP has not identified a particular piece of mechanical or electrical equipment which it contends will not be adequately qualified.
As an additional basis for the contention, CFSP alleges that the Applicant is required to meet the criteria in Regulatory Guides 1.70 and 1.89.
Regulatory guides are neither regulations nor the only acceptable method of meeting a specific regulatory requirement. Solu-tions different from those in the guides are acceptable if they provide a basis for findings requisite to issue the license. River Bend, ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 772-73 (1977). Thus, the Staff objects to admitting this basis as part of Contention 3, if CFSP is attempting to require compli-ance with these regulatory guides.
In addition, IE Bulletin 79-01B, which CFSP alleges Applicant has not met, applies only to operating reactors. Since compliance with the bulletin is not relevant to WNP-3, this basis is also objectionable.
CFSP 4 Petitioner contends that the CESSAR design utilized at WNP-3 is inadequate to provide rapid depressurization, decay heat removal and the capability for natural circulation and thus violates the require-ments of 10 CFR 50 Appendix A General Design Criteria 34, 25, 38 and 44 and the provisions of NUREG-0737.
The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention provided the scope of the contention is limited to the one basis which has been set forth with reasonable specificity in accordance with 10 CFR 6 2.714(b), i.e., that the Auxiliary Feedwater System (AFW) is not yet environmentally qualified. While the Applicant's FSAR (66 3.2.2 and 3.11) indicates that the AFW will be environmentally qualified, it is clear that at the present time such qualification has not been estab-lished. Since the AFW is necessary for natural circulation in the ini-tial decay heat removal phase, the contention, as limited, is admissible at this juncture. However, once the Applicant has satisfactorally demon-strated the environmental qualification of the AFW, the concerns of CFSP will become moot.
The remainder of Petitioner's bases are either forms of hearsay l
l (e.g., Inside NRC, " personal communication with R. Pollard") lack nexus l
with the proposed contention (general allegations regarding reliability of steam generators under unspecified conditions), or are actions which cannot be taken prior to low-power testing (endurance tests on AFW l
l I
l 1
! systempumps). For these reasons, the latter bases do not meet the stand-ards of 10 CFR $ 2.714(b) and should not be considered as support for this contention.
CFSP 5 Petitioner contends that methods proposed by Applicant to meet the requirements for instrumentation for detection of inadequate core cooling (ICC), NUREG-0737, NUREG 0578 and GDC 13 of Part 50 to 10 CFR are inade-quate.
Staff objects to admission of this contention on the grounds that it does not specifically identify an item in NUREG-0737 which has not been complied with or any item in NUREG-0737 which is insufficient. For the contention to be admissible, it must clearly state (1) the nexus of the issue to the TMI accident, (2) the significance of the issue, and (3) the difference between the intervenor's position and the Commission's rationale in considering the TMI-related requirements.
Pacific Gas &
Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2),
LBP-81-5, 13 NRC 226 (1981), at 234-5. See also Further Commission Guidance for Power Reactor Operating Licenses: Revised Statement of Policy, CLI-80-42,12 NRC 654 (December 18, 1980) (Revised Policy Statement).
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any nexus between the requirement imposed by the Licensing Board on the TMI facility and the WNP-1 facility. The fact that the requirement was imposed in another facility does not supply the requisite nexus.
The Staff alsr/ opposes the basis for the contention which alleges that Applicant's meUtods do not comply with the regulatory guides.
Applicants are free to select methods to comply with general design
. criteria other than strict adherence to regulatory guides or staff posi-tions. The general design criteria of the regulations are intended to provide engiaeering goals rather than precise tests by which reactor safety can be measured. Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLI-798-6, 7 NRC 400, 406-07 (1978). Thus, thi., basis does not provide an admissible issue.
CFSP 6 Petitioner contends that the Emergency Diesel Generators as designed and installed are unreliable as a source of on-site emergency power necessary for safety. Failure of the diesel generators should be con-sidered a design basis accident; the existing design of WNP-3 does not meet the requirements of GDC 17 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A.
The Staff objects to the admission of Contention 6 on the grounds that is constitutes a challenge to the regulations and the bases stated I
are inadequate. The requirements for onsite power systems, of which diesel generators are a part, are set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, GDC-17.
Included in GDC-17 is the single failure criterion used in nuclear plant design. Accordingly, there is no NRC requirement that the simultaneous loss of both diesel generators be considered a design basis event. To that extent, the contention is a challenge to the regulations and thus inadmissible.
10 C.F.R. Q 2.758(a).
There were special circumstances that caused the failure of both diesel generators (i.e., station blackout), to be considered as a probable i
l design basis event in Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Power Plant, Unit No. 2), ALAB-603, 12 NRC 30, 32 (1980). CFSP has not stated informa-tion which is sufficient to establish a nexus between the circumstances at St. Lucie and WNP-3.
In addition, the Commission has stated that
.. ALAB-603 does not establish generic guidelines for detennining design basis events nor does it establish station blackout as a design basis event. St. Lucie, CLI-81-12, 13 NRC 838, 844 (1981).
.As al additional basis for this contention, CFSP states that defects exist in the generators and that the generators and associated controls arc not environmentally qualified. This basis raises the issue of whether certain equipment has been qualified. CFSP has joined the issue of design basis accidents for WNP-3 with environmental qualification of diesel generators and their components. However, this basis should not be admitted as an issue for litigation under Contention 6 because it is not within the scope of the contention.
In addition, as discussed in response to Contention 3, the new environmental qualification rule does not require a demonstration of compliance with the rule until March 1985 at the earliest. Thus, the Applicant is not required to qualify its equipment on a schedule other than that set forth in the rule.
CFSP 7 Petitioner contends that there is no reasonable assurance that the Seismic Category I structures, systems, components and equipment at WNP-3 would continue to operate during a seismic event in the vicinity of the site, thereby violating GCC 2 of Appendix A to Part 50, 10 CFR and jeopardizing the public health and safety.-
Tne Staff does not object to the admission of a contention cor.cern-ing the evaluation of potential seismic events at the WNP-3 site, provided this contention is combined with Contention 13_/ and the scope of such a 3
3/
Contention 13 allegas:
Petitioner contends that Applicant has not adequately or accurately assessed the seismic capability of the WNP-3 site as required by (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
. seismic contention is limited to the basis provided by the letter from U.S.G.S. to R.E. Jackson, NRC dated April 21, 1983, which is also referred to as a basis for Contention 13.
The Staff has reviewed each of the numerous Inspection Reports cited by Petitioner and has determined that none of them bear directly on the structural capability of WNP-3 to withstand a seismic event.
However, as previously noted, a contention directed toward the potential magnitude of such an event would be admissible. More3ver, were it determined that the seismicity of the WNP-3 site is greater than previously postulated, further inquiry into the structural adequacy of WNP-3 would be in order.
CFSP 8 Petitioner contends that the emergency response plans proposed by the Applicant are inadequate to assure that protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency as required by 10 CFR 50.33, 50.47, 50.54 and Appendix E to Part 50.
The Staff objects to the admission of Contention 8 because it seeks to litigate both on-site and off-site planning and the bases supporting the contention primarily pertain to off-site planning issues. Because off-site emergency plans have not been developed, admission of a conten-tion challenging the sufficiency of the plans would be premature and any basis speculative. See Catawba, supra at 470 n.17.
CFSP will have an (FOOTNOTE 3 CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
-3/
GDC 2 of Appendix A, 10 CFR 50 and Appendix A to 10 CFR 100 thereby underestimating the risk to public health and safety from a seismic event.
. opportunity to raise contentions regarding the adequacy of off-site planning at WNP-3 when the State and local plans are filed if it can demonstrate either that the contentions are wholly based on information in those plans or that a balancing of the five factors listed in 10 CFR
% 2.714(a)(1) favors the admission of the contention.
The bases relied upon by CFSP in support of this contention primarily raise inadequacies regarding the off-site planning, such as:
evacuation routes, travel time estimates, the exact size of the 10 and 50 mile EPZ, agreements with surrounding State, Federal and local entities, public education and notification procedures, and shelter for surrounding populations. Such asserted inadequacies with respect to off-site planning are objectionable as speculative and should not be admitted until off-site plans are filed so that the contention may be sufficiently specific. See Catawba, supra at 468.
In addition, CFSP asserts bases that would impose requirements beyond NRC regulations and are thus objectionable. CFSP's statement that the 10-mile EPZ should be larger for pregnant women and children (CFSP Supplement at 20) is an impermissible challenge to the regulations under 10 CFR % 2.758(a). Radiation doses to these populations were considered when the Commission developed the 10-mile EPZ.
In addition, there was no significant increase in the rate of infant mortality within ten miles of TMI-2. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1),LBP-81-59,14NRC1211,1593-95(1981);ALAB-697,16NRC (October 22,1982) slip op'. at 36-37. Thus, this basis is also factually incorrect.
. CFSP 9 Petitioner contends that NRC inspection and enforcement has not been adequate to ensure that construction of WNP-3 confoms to NRC criteria and applicable industry codes and that, as a consequence, operation of the plant will endanger the public health and safety.
The NRC Staff objects to admission of Contention 9 on the grounds that it challenges the basic structure of the regulatory process, is in certain respects repetitive, and lacks adequate basis. The bases in support of this contention concern in part criticism of the NRC inspec-tion program in general. Such criticism constitutes a challenge to the basic structure of the regulatory process, under which the NRC inspection program is one of selective auditing and not 100% verification of all phases of an applicant's program. This regulatory program is aimed at determining, by spot checkinp and sampling, whether or not an applicant is in fact providing adequate assurance of quality in the construction and operation of its facility.
Each NRC applicant is responsible for assuring that its nuclear power plants are built and operated safely and in conformance with NRC regulations.
The other bases cited by CFSP do not support this contention and in many cases are factually incorrect. CFSP refers to the "WNP-3/5 SALP, February 1981 (Supplement, at 22). However, there was no such SALP in February 1981. There was a management meeting in February 1981, which is documented in a report transmitted by letter dated March 6,1981 from NRC Region V to the Applicant. There is nothing in that report which supports CFSP's assertion that "the plant received fewer inspection hours from the NRC than the average plant in Region V or the nation (Supplement,at22).
In support of its allegation that "the NRC has been hesitant to make the violation of codes, procedures and construction
-- practices nonconformances or to proceed to other forms of enforcement action" (Supplement, at 22), CFSP cites Inspection Report 82-18.
Supplement, at 23. That inspection report contained a Notice of Violation for a practice cited by CFSP (" direct violation of CB&I proce-dures on September 26,1982"). Another inspection report cited by CFSP (82-15), relating to the use of " Project Change Proposal" (Supplement, at 23) allegedly shows that "the implications of the discovery... were not thoroughly investigated." Supplement, at 23. However, there is nothing in the report to support that allegation and in fact there are several other inspection reports discussing the entire subject of change controls (e.g., 82-16,82-21), which are not cited by CFSP. As a result of such inaccuracies, the contention also lacks adequate basis.
CFSP 10 Petitioner contends that Applicant will not adequately maintain the structures, systems, and components of WNP-3 which are important to safety, during the period of time during which it is held in a
" preservation state" pending completion resulting in violation of Appendix B to Part 50,10 CFR.
The Staff objects to admission of Contention 10. The proposed contention is vague, speculative and grounded upon bases which are in part factually incorrect. CFSP has not specified the " structures, sys-tems and components" which are the subject of its concerns.
In the con-tention, CFSP refers to "the structures, systems and components of WNP-3 which are important to safety." In the bases provided in support of the contention, CFSP refers to "the structures, systems and components neces-sary to safety during the preservation state."
It is unclear whether the phrase "necessary to safety" is meant to be synonymous with the phrase l
. "important to safety." More importantly, no where does CFSP specify the particular structures, systems and components which it contends will not be adequately maintained. Without being more specific, CFSP asserts a broad challenge regarding a large number of systems.
Moreover, a contention concerning maintenance of WNP-3 during "the preservation state" is speculative. Although WPPSS has directed an immediate slowoown on WNP-3 for a period not to exceed 30 days (see letter from WPPSS to NRC Region V, June 1,1983, " Slowdown of Construc-tion on Project No. 3") a decision whether to restart construction or proceed to a preservation state has not yet been reached.
It is purely speculative to base a contention on the asserted lack of "a plan for the maintenance of... WHP-3 during the preservation state" (Supplement, at 24), prior to a decision by WPPSS whether to extend the construction slowdown beyond the initial 30-day period. Such a contention, resting on a purely speculative basis, should not be admitted until a decision is reached on the status of WNP-3 and a plan for maintenance of WNP-3 during any " preservation mode" (Letter, supra, at 1) is filed so that the con-tention may be sufficiently specific.
In addition, CFSP asserts certain bases that simply do not support this contention. As basis for the content' ion, CFSP asserts that the Applicant has been consistently understaffed during normal construction..."
Supplement, at 24. One of the inspection reports which CFSP cites in support of this assertion is " Inspection Report 81-17, at 11," which at that page makes no reference whatsoever to understaffing. CFSP also asserts as bases in support of this contention " problems with water control measures at WNP-5" (Supplement, at 25), citing a Unit 5
,w,.
-.c
~,,-,,.e-------
. Inspection Report and Inspection Report 82-07. The latter report docu-cents an environmental inspection at WNP-3 and does not relate at all to " water control problems" at WNP-5.
CFSP 11 Petitioner contends that the Applicant is not technically qualified nor exhibited the management capability necessary to operate WNP-3 as required by 10 CFR 50.40(a) and that operation will therefore endanger the public health and safety. Applicant's construction of WNP-3 has revealed the systematic lack of management responsibility required by 1
Section I of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.
The NRC Staff opposes the admission of this contention on the grounds that it is outside the scope of this proceeding and lacks adequate basis.
CFSP essentially relies upon bases which relate to the Applicant's i
management capability to construct WNP-3.
Insofar as proposed Conten-tion 11 challenges the Applicant's capability to construct WNP-3, the Staff submits that this issue is beyond the scope of this operating license proceeding, except where an intervenor alleges that certain specific aspects of construction prevent safe operation of the facility.
CFSP has not done so here. Rather, CFSP merely makes the bald assertion that " Applicant has a history of managemen,t problems... which have resulted in significant construction deficiencies." Supplement, at 25-26.
While Applicant's technical qualifications to operate WNP-3 is within the scope of this p.roceeding, no basis is provided to support the claim that the Applicant lacks the necessary technical qualifications.
In fact, CFSP does not even cite the appropriate regulation regarding technical qualifications and management capability. CFSP cites 10 C.F.R.
. 50.40(a), rather than 10 C.F.R. 50.40(b), which relates, in part, to technical qualifications. Also, the other regulation which CFSP cites, 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B,Section I, concerns quality assurance organization, not technical qualifications and management capability.
Other bases relied upon by CFSP are factually incorrect or irrelevant. CFSP cites "NUREG-0834" in support of its assertion that WNP-2 is rated as one of seven below average construction sites by the NRC. CFSP neglects to point out that the very same document "NRC Licensee Assessments," gives a different and better (average) rating to WNP-3/5. See NUREG-0834, Table 2, " Ratings for Power Reactor Facilities Under Construction." Similarly, it is irrelevant whether most of the craft workers allegedly terminated at WNP-3 have, as CFSP asserts, left the area after tennination. Supplement, at 27.
CFSP 12 Petitioner contends that Applicant has failed to construct WNP-3 in accordance with NRC rules and regulations, applicable industry standards and codes with a quality assurance program which meets the criteria of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B and GDC 1 of Appendix A and thus there is no reasonable assurance that operation of the plant will not endanger the public health and safety as reouired by 10 50.40.
The Staff does not oppose the admissi,on of this contention, provided it is combined with Contention 171/whichisvirtuallyidentical. Peti-4/
Contention 17 alleges:
Petitioner contends that Applicant does not have and will not implement a QA/QC~ program which will function as required by GDC 1 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 50.40,Section VIII(2)&(c) of Appendix A to Part 2 to assure the protection of the public health and safety.
. tioner has cited numerous NRC Inspection Reports which have noted specific instances of quality assurance problems at WNP-3 in the past. While examination of each report individually reveals corrective actions and no loss of integrity of the facility, the cumulative impact of these problems appears to raise questions concerning future work, and thus form an adequate basis for the admission of Contentions 12 and 17.
CFSP 13 Petitioner contends that Applicant has not adequately or accurately assessed the seismic capability of the WNP-3 site as required by GDC 2 of Appendix A, 10 CFR 50 and Appendix A to 10 CFR 100 thereby under-estimating the risk to public health and safety from a seismic event.
See response to Contention 7.
CFSP 14 Petitioner contends that the fire protection program at WNP-3 does not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48, Appendix R and General Design Criteria 3.
Contention 14 as drafted is broad, vague and is not supported by specific bases. Thus, it is inadmissible. Without being more specific, Intervenor asserts a broad challenge regarding the adequacy of the Applicant's fire protection program.
The Commission's fire protection requirements and fire damage limits are set forth in 10 CFR 50.48, Part 50, Appendix A, GDC 3 and Appendix R.
Appendix R establishes the requirements for fire protection l
systems. CFSP has failed to identify any aspects of the Applicant's f
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) concerning fire protection (" Fire Protection System") which are allegedly inadequate. Therefore, the
. Staff objects to the admission of Contention 14 because it lacks the requisite specificity under 10 CFR Q 2.714.
CFSP 15 Petitioner contends that Applicant's Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) calculations do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and the criteria of Appendix K, 10 CFR Part 50.
The Staff objects to admission of Contention 15. The Applicant has provided the calculations referred to in the contention. See, CESSAR-F, Section 6.3 and Appendix B.
Petitioner has not indicated in what way it believes these calculations are incorrect and any basis for that belief. Accordingly, this contention should be rejected.
CFSP 16 Petitioner contends that the Applicant has underestimated the effects of WNP-3 operation on the aquatic biota of the Chehalis River in violation of 10 CFR 51.20 and the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Staff opposes admission of this contention. The responsibility for administering the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) rests with the Commission, which must make an independent assessment of environmen-tal impacts. As stated in 10 CFR % 51.1 " Purpose and Scope":
(a) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 State.
852), implemented by Executive Order 11514 and the Council on Environmental Quality's Guidelines of August 1, 1973 (38 FR 20550),
requires that all agencies of the Federal Government prepare detailed environmental statements on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The principal objective of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is to build into the agency decision making process an appropriate and careful consideration of environmental aspects of proposed actions.
(emphasis supplied)
}
I
. i Thus, an allegation of an incorrect environmental input from the Applicant can constitute neither a violation of NEPA nor an admissible contention.
CFSP 17 Petitioner contends that Applicant does not have and will not implement a QA/QC program which will function as required by GDC 1 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 50.40,Section VIII(2)&(c) of Appendix A to Part 2 to assure the protection of the public health and safety.
See response to Contention 12.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Staff opposes the admission of the proposed CFSP Contentions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16.
The Staff does not oppose the admission of Contention 4.
Finally, the Staff does not oppose the admission of Contentions 7 and 13, and 12 and 17, of admitted as combined contentions.
Res ectfully submitted, Marjorie U. Rothschi d Counsel for NRC Staff
,A Richard G. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland I
this lith day of July, 1983 l
\\
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM,
)
)
)
(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3)
)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the captioned matter.
In accordance with 6 2.713(b),10 CFR Part 2, the following information is provided:
Richard G. Bachma.nn Name U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Address Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, DC 20555 Area Code 301 - 492-8648 Telephone Number Supreme Court of the Sta,te of California Admission NRC Staff Name of Party U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
?/
,-]
Richard G. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Betgesda, Maryland this lith day of July, 1983
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
)
Docket No. 50-508 OL
)
(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3)
)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the above-captioned matter.
Inaccordancewith52.713(b),
10 C.F.R. Part 2, the following information is provided:
Marjorie U. Rothschild Name:
Address:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, DC 20555 (301) 492-7991 Telephone Number United States Supreme Court Admissions:
District of Columbia Court of Appeals Supreme Court of Florida NRC Staff Name of Party:
U.S. Nut:1 ear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ht& U..h%c&ld Marjorie U. Rothschild l
Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 1st day of July,1983
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATDMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
In the Matter of
)
)
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM,
)
)
)
i (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO C0ALITION FOR SAFE l
POWER SUPPLEMENT TO REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE" and " NOTICES OF APPEARANCE" for Richard G. Bachmann and Majorie U. Rothschild 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 Commission's internal mail system, t
this lith day of July, 1983:
Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing 4
l Administrative Judge Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555*
1 Washington, DC 20555*
Docketing and Service Section Mr. Frederick J. Shon Office of the Secretary Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555*
Mr. Eugene Rosolie Coalition for Safe Power Dr. James H. Carpenter Suit;e 527 Administrative Judge 408 South West 2nd Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Portland, OR 97204 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 6
Washington, DC 20555*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l
Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555*
Sanford L. Hartman, Esq.
i Debevoise & Liberman I200 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 ao i
Donald F. Hassell l
1 Counsel fcr NRC Staff l
===u====.==.=..~. -..
..