ML20032C705
| ML20032C705 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1981 |
| From: | Johari Moore NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032C706 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111100757 | |
| Download: ML20032C705 (34) | |
Text
l-11/6/81 r
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-155
)
(Big Rock Point Plant)
)
(Spent Fuel Pool Modification)
P NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' I
REPLY TO LICENSEE'S MOTIONS AND STAFF OBJECTIONS g.
Noyo g 1981u U u.s.n?@ gig,,,
I.
INTRODUCTION
\\
c g
In its O'ctober 23, 1931 Order the Licensing Board granted the NRC.
,[
Staff leave to file this response to new arguements raised in the reply of Intervenors Christa-Maria, et al. (Intervenors), to certain of Licensee's motions and to the objections of the Staff to Intervenors' additional contentions.
Intervenors' reply was filed on October 9, 1981.II The Staff continues to oppose the adnission of any of Intervenors' additional contentions on the grounds that these contentions are' untimely, are not based on new information contained in the Staff's safety and environmental documents, and lack the requisite basis for admission as matters in controversy in this proceeding.
-1/
This document was served by Intervenors for the second time on October 16, 1981, after learning that none of the parties had received the original filing.
DkSIGddY @ 00 b b
?A*i88WAbbb%
bheu$a n p,ck j PDR 5 olff
II.
BACKGROUND
-On September 4,1981, Intervenors filed 18 additional contentions, many of which contained subparts.
Intervenors claimed that they filed these contentions "as of right." Additional Contentions of Intervenors Christa-Maria, Jim Mills and Joanne Bier, or alternatively, Motion for Leave to File Additional Contentions at 1 (September 4,1981).
In the alternative Intervenors sought leave to file these additional conten-tions.
Id.
In response to Intervenors' additional contentions the Staff pointed out that the contentions were untimely, that Intervenors had not even attempted to address the five factors which must be balanced before late contentions are admitted, and that the additional contentions lack the requisite basis for admission as matters in ton-troversy. NRC Staff Response to Additional Contentions (September 15, 1981).2/
I
-2/
Licensee filed two motions. One motion sought dismissal of all the l
additional contentions except for Contention 9-1 on the ground that they were untimely. The second motion sought dismissal of Conten-tion 9-1 as premature, and the establishment of a briefing schedule on the legal issue of the applicability of Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA to this proposed expansion.
i Intervenors responded both to Licensee's motions and to the Staff's objections to their additional contentions.E In their response Intervenors raised certain arguments which they had not previously raised in this proceeding. Their first argument is that the allowance in the schedule approved by the Board in its Order Following Special Prehearing Conference for time to file additional contentions based on the Staff's safety and environnental documents meant that such conten-tions could not be considered untimely.
"Intervenors Reply to Licensee's
!!otion and Staff's Response to Interveno *s Additional Contentions and Reply to Licensee Separate Motion Concerning Contention 9-1" at 1-3 (October 9, 1981) (hereinafter Intervenors' reply). Therefore, they argue they were under no obligation to show why the five factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a) of the Commission's regulations weigh in favor of the admission of these additional contentionc.
Id. at 1.
They also argue that the Board, by a statement of its Chairman, changed the standards for admitting late contentions. M.at2.
Intervenors next argue that certain of the additional contentions relate to contentions previously withdrawn subject to reassertion before the close of '
discovery.
Id. at 3-4.
Intervenors next discuss each individual con-tention in terms of how they allege it relates to the Staff's Safety
-3/
According to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.730(c) of the Commission's regulations, since Intervenors had filed a motion and the Staff had responded to it, Intervenors were not entitled to a further opportunity to reply absent a request to the, Board for leave to do so.
The Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fenni Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-459, 7 NRC 470, 471 (1978).
Such a request was never made to the Board.
Due to the composition of Intervenors' filing, however, it is difficult to tell which portions respond to Licensee's motions and which portions respond to the Staff's objections.
i Evaluation (SE) and Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA), and the Id. at 4-13.
Finally, Intervenors d
alleged basis for the contention.
attempt to show how the five factors should be balanced in favor of the admission of their additional contention.
Id. at 14-16.
Intervenors did not attempt to articulate these arguments in detail in their original filing.
Therefore, on October 21, 1981, the Staff requested leave of the Licensing Board to reply to these new arguments.O The Board granted the Staff's motion by Order dated October 23, 1981.
This document constitutes the Staff's reply to Intervenors' latest arguments.
III.
DISCUSSION A.
The Licensing Board has not Waived the Requirements for the Admission of Late-Filed Contentions.
The Commission's regulations provide that contentions must be filed 15 days prior to the holding of the first prehearing conference.
10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b). This time may be extended by the Board presiding over a particular proceeding after a balancing of the five factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a).
Id.
See Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5,13 NRC 361, 364 (1981).
Intervenors now claim that the Licensing Board, in approving a schedule which included 20 days after the close of discovery for the 4]
Intervenors' counsel interposed no objection to this request.
5-i filing of contentions relating to new infonnation contained in the SE and EIA, waived 9 2.714(b) of the Commission's regulations.
Intervenors' reply at 1-2.
Intervenors argue that there is no language in the Board's j
order requiring a showing of the balancing of the five factors. M. a t 1.
They also argue that, since they have the right to file contentions at any time during a proceeding, the time period in the schedule must connote a waiver of any objection to these additional contentions as untimely. M. a t 2.
These arguments ignore the situation present in this proceeding and are without merit.
The schedule governing the conduct of this proceeding was negotiated by the partiss to this proceeding and approved by the Board.
Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), LBP-80-4,11 NRC 117,134 (1980).
Intervenors ignore the fact that this was a negotiated schedule.
The schedule was embodied in a stipulation signed by Counsel for Licensee, Staff, and Intervenors Christa-Maria, et al.E This schedule provides time periods during which certain actions must be taken to promote the orderly progression of this proceeding. The schedule was not intended, and nowhere claims, to constitute a general waiver of the Commission's regulations.
In fact, where the Staff and Licensee agreed not to object on the grounds of untimeliness, the appropriate language was placed in the stipulation.
For example, the stipulation noter that, in the case of Christa-Maria's Contention 4 the contiention was withdrawn subject to reassertion without objection as to untimeliness.
See LBP-80-4, supra, 5]
Mr. O'Neill agreed to the major portion of the schedule at the prehearing conference.
--g-
+
y
~<e
-=, -
+-
w --
9
-+-r--
w-y m e-y w
g m
ve
i at 124.
No such language appears in the portion of the negotiated schedule relating to the 20-day period set aside for the filing of contentions concerning new information contained in the Staff's safety and envb onmental documents.
- d. at 134.
This schedule represents a compromise arrived at by the parties then involved in the proceeding.
This 20-day period af ter the close of discovery for the filing of addi-tional contentions based on new information in the SE and EIA represents an attempt by the parties to inject some certainty into the proceeding's course. As shown by the language of the schedule, there was no intent to waive any of the requirements by which a late-filed contention would become admissible. An attempt by Intervenors now to argue that they I
could file any additional contentions they wished without regard to the requirements for admission of such late-filed contentions subverts both the negotiation process engaged in by the parties to this proceeding and the orderly progress of the proceeding itself.
Intervenors' claim that the Board's Order does not set forth a requirement that the five factors be balanced is irrelevant to the situation before this Board. The Board is not required to set forth in detail the Commission's rules of practice.
It is incumbent upon inter-venors to familiarize themselves with the conduct of the proceeding and the rules and regulations of the Commission. Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 & 3), ALAB-615, 12 NRC 350, 352 (1980); See Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings,Section II, 46 Fed. Reg. 28533 (1981) (hereinafter Policy Statement).
In light of the clear language of the schedule, Intervenors were required to affirmatively address the five. factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a).
This was not done in their original filing. Their attempt to do so in their reply to Licensee's motions and Staff's objections fails to show that 'the five factors should be balanced in favor of the admission of their additional contentions.
See Section III.C, infra.
Intervenors also argue that, due to a statement made by the Licensing Board Chairman at the prehearing conference, Intervenors are entitled to raise any " safety question" without regard to provision of a basis or the requirements for the admission of late-filed contentions.
Intervenors' reply at 2-3.
Though Intervenors raised this arguaent briefly in their original filing they have significantly expanded it in their reply. Therefore, the Staff will address this arguaent once again.
As the Staff has previously pointed out the Chairman's statement referred to safety questions discovered during the proceeding.E NRC Staff Response to Additional Contentions at 4 (September 15,1981).
That statement clearly recognized that the issue would have to be raised as a result of new infonnation.
It also implies that Inter-venors have an obligation to do more than just say they want to raise something as a safety question.
It implies a requirement to show on what basis Intervenors make the claim the issue they raise is indeed a
" legitimate safety question."
In addition, the Chairman at no time 6/
The Chainnan stated:
-Any time during the proceeding that you "Let ne say this:
discover a safety question that ought to be addressed, you certainly ought to apply to the Board, and I can't see that we would ever deny a request if there is a legitimate safety question involved." Tr. 195-196.
i
0
- e stated that the Cor.uission's regulations were being waived in this proceeding.
In fact, licensing Boards aust operate within the Commission's regulations.
Intervenors' argunent would mean that the Licensing Bcard nad changed the standards set forth in the Commission's regulations for the admission of late-filed contentions. fio reading of the Chairman's statenent evinces any such intent.
Intervenors' wish to be relieved from having to meet cny procedural obligations in this proceeding cannot be accons;3 dated.
See Policy Statement, supra.
B.
Relatien of Intervenors' Contentions To Previously Withdrawn Contentiont 4 and 7.
Intervenors' next major argunent is that certain contentions were withdrawn at the prehearing conference with the understanding that new contentions within the same subject matter parameters as the withdrawn contentions could be reasserted before the close of discovery without objection as to their timeliness.
Intervenors' reply at 3.
Intervenors also request that the Board overlook the fact that the additional contentions were filed after the close of discovery. This argunent lacks merit and their request should not be granted.
l In their filing of September 4,1981, Intervenors never claimed 1
that any of their additional contentions were relate 4 to previously withdrawn Contentions 4 and 7.
As part of the negotiated stipulation entered into by Christa-Maria, Licensee, and Staff, Christa-fiaria's
o counsel agreed to withdraw Contention 4.8 As the stipulation points out the Staff and Licensee believe that the contention la:ks
~
specificity.
See Stipulation Among NRC Staff, Christa-!! aria and Consumers Power Company at 12 (November 26,1979).
The contention was vague and did not specify the safety hazards of concern to Intervonors.
Counsel for Intervenors argued that no nore specificity was possible until the inforination referenced in the contention was completely available.
Id.
For this reason the parties agreed that the contention would be withdrawn:
"provided that after reviewing information concerning the matters raised in the contention as written in the October 30, 1979 submittal to the Licensing Board, Christa-ftaria may assert a new contention within the subject matters parameters of said Contention No.
4...."
The Staff and Licensee agreed that were such a new contention filed before the close of discovery:
"b.
The NRC Staff and Consumers will not object to the filing of any new contention under paragraph (a) on the ground that
,7f Contention 4 stated:
"In its Description and Safety Analysis the Applicant has failed to provide sufficient information about the new storage racks and the pool environment to permit an assessment of all possible shfety hazards which may occur as a result of the expansion of the capacity of the pool. The Applicant offers a general description of the kind of storage rack it may use, but does not specify either 4
j the precise type or rack vendor.
Nor does the Applicant indicate I
what pool environment it will maintain if the expansion is permitted, i.e., the Description and Safety Analysis does not state whether the pool water will be borated, oxygenated, stagnant or demineralized. This information has been shown to be critical, at the Zion facility for eumple, to a determination of whether corrosion and cracking can be expected in the racks. Licensing Board Memorandun and Order, In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison
_Co., (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2) Docket No. 50-295, 50-304, Saptember 14, 1979, NRC i
I k
l
it was filed after the time period specified for the filing of contentions (15-days prior to the holding of the special prehearing conference required by 10 C.F.R. 9 2.751a)..."
.Intervenors now claim, somewhat tardily, that not one, but eleven new contentions relate to the same subject matter parameters as withdrawn Contention No. 4.
Intervenors give no explanation of why all of these contentions fall within the subject matter of that withdrawn conten-tion. The Staff is once again left-to speculate on that matter, and to try to address what it believes Intervenors mean by these allegations. I Once again Intervenors have failed to make any attempt to shoulder their burden of participation in this proceeding.
Contentions 2-1 and 2-2 which Intervenors allege relate to the subject matter of Contention 4 concerns the encapsulation of defective spent fuel assemblies.
Intervenors allege such encapsulation is necessary to avoid hann to the health and safety of the public. These contentions bear no relationship either to the design of the new spent fuel storage racks or the spent fuel pool environment.
Rather they concern measures for accounting for defective spent fuel assemblies before they reach the spent fuel pool.
Intervenors' statement that these contentions relate to the same subject matter parameters as withdrawn Contention 4 is frivolous.
Contentions 4-1 and 4-2 are the next contentions which Intervenors allege fall within the same subject matter parameters as withdrawn Con-tention 4.
Again, there is' no further explanation of this allegation.
8/
This reply is in no way intended to waive any of the objections previously made to Intervenors' additional contentions.
s.
c.'
~
These contentions relate to Intervenors' View that uonitoring of radia-
- h s
tion levels around the pool should be required prior to and af ter the rack' replacement.U These contentions do not concern either the desien
~
of the new racks or the environment to be m3fntained in the spent fuel pool, i.e., water chemistry.
Therefore,.a'-tbeliness objection sto thcce contentions is appropriate and warranted.
Contentions 6-1 and 6-2 concern the intervenors'. view that a limir -
should be placed on the weight of loads to be carried over the spent fuel
~~
pool. There is no mention of how heavy loads relate either to the design of the new racks, the vendor of these racks, the materials use[in the
~ ~
,,('
racks, or thE spent fuel pool water environment. Ther( fore, these conten-tions are unrelated to withdrawn Contention 4, are untimely an$ should
~
not be cdnitted as matters in controversy in this proceeding. '
3:
p Contentions 7-1 and 7-2 also relate to heavy loads in the v'icinity 7
of the pool.
Intervenors allege that a pool cover is necessary to.-preclude heavy drops and cask tipping accidents. Again, there is 7,o mention.of.
either the new racks or the spent fuel poob environment as discussed in
~
3 withdrawn Contention 4.
Therefore. these contentions should not be -
~
admitted as related to withdrawn Contention 4.
~
Contentions 8-1 and 8-2 rela e 50 Intervenors belief that the spent fuel pool should be borated during rack replacwent to[ preclude criticality.
While at first glance theN' contentions see6 to be encom-passed within Contention 4', a closer look shows that it is',qin actuality,
_m.
-9/
In actuality it should be noted that only the failed fueb rack will be replaced.
New racks will be added to the pool but the old ones will remain within the pool.
~
5 4
t
m.
~
/
s
~
unrelated to that contention.
Contention 4 was concerned with a lack of
['
infomation as to whether the pool water was barated, oxygenated, or 1
AX demineralized in the nomal -course of business.
Intervenors believed m,
this information7 0 be ' nportantf i,o'a deteminaffon of whether corrosion x $'.-
t s
or cracking could be expected b. the new racks.
Boration during refueling
-@carsnorelationshiptotlisconcern. Therefore,' Cantentions 8-1 and 8-2 are unrelated tc:'the subject v.atters set fo'rth in withdrawn Contention 4.
\\
Contention 16-1 argues that the existence of additional plutonium-g.:s:
enriched-spent fuel;onsite will increase leakage of r0dioactive matter.
l'.(There is no con'nection whatsoever between this contention and withdrawn
~
Contention 4.
This contention corcerns fuel, and not either the design of the new rackr or the pool watir environment. Therefore, Intervenors'
/
s allegatiertconce ning this; contention is urifounded.
~
.Intervenors argue that Contentions 1-1, 1-2, 3-1, 3-2, 12-1, 12-2,
~
%1C-Y and.16-1 relate to the same, sebject matter'picameters as withdrawn Contention 7.
' Contention 7 was not part of the stipulation entered into O
- s by the. parties. The Board in,its Order Following Special Prehearing Conference stated that this contention was withdrawn at the prehearing Ie conferenc'e " subject to being rhsubmitted with more specificity after discovery, under the same agreement as Contention 4, i.e., without the j,,.
licensee or staff interposing an objection on the grounds of lack of timeliness." LBP-80-4, supra, a t 124.
kllbutoneofthecontentiors
?
named by Intervenors cannos be considered reassertions of withdrawn
.s
^
t t
/
t I
/
~--<v
_, ~
---e.,
A w
O s -
g Contention 7 with more specificity as required by the Licensing Board's Order Following Special Prehearing Conference.E
~
Contentions 1-1 and 1-2 state that the increase in emissions of Iodine-129 and Krypton-85 due to the handling and storage of additional spent fuel is inimical to the health and safety of the public. These
~
contentions at least specify which elements are of concern to Intervenors.
However, these contentions were not filed before the close of discovery.
Therefore, an objection on the grounds of untimeliness is appropriate.
If the Licensing Board accepts this attempt by intervenors to backfit their additional contentions into admissibility in this proceeding, the
~
Staff points out that even if the objection as to timeliness were not sustained, the contentions still lack any basis for these admissions as natters in controversy in this proceeding. They in no way indicate how the residents in the vicinity of the plant will be harmed by the increase in emissions due to the expansion.
In addition, it should be noted that these contentions are really subsumed under O'Neill's Contention No. II.A.
Contentions 3-1 and 3-2 are unrelated to withdrawn Contention 7.
Intervenors contend that containment should be isoluted during fuel transfer operations to preclude the consequences of a fuel handling accident,-and that when containment is open to vent humidity and airborne 10/ Contention 7 stated:
0 "The levels of airborne' radiation released to the atmosphere through the containment ventilation system will be increased as a result of the storage of additional spent fuel.
This increased level of radiation presents an unacceptable risk to the health of residents in the vicinity.of the plant."
concentrations all transfer operations should cease.
Although these contentions use the word airborne concentrations, they make no reference to the increase in these concentrations due to the spent fuel pool expansion.
Rather, they suggest a method which Intervenors believe could mitigate the consequences of a fuel handling accident.
Conten-tion 7 as stated is not an accident-related contention, but rather relates to the normal releases from the plant's containment ventilation system. Therefore, objections as to the timeliness of these contentions are appropriate and should be sustained.
Contentions 12-1 and 12-2 concern the increased consequences of some hypothetical steam explosion or meltdown due to the proposed expansion.
These contentions are also unrelated to withdrawn Contention 7.
Though they refer to releases of radiation, that is all that they have in common with withdrawn Contention 7.
They make no mention of the contain-ment ventilation system. These contentions are unrelated to the normal operation of the plant which makes integral use of that system.
These are merely vague accident contentions which Intervenors have attempted unsuccessfully to force under the umbrella of ' withdrawn Contention 7.
The Board required that Contention 7 be reasserted with more speci-i i
j fici ty.
Contentions 12-1 and 12-2 are less specific than Contention 7.
l Since the relationship is not established between withdrawn Conten-i tion 7 and additional contentions 12-1 and 12-2, objections as to the timeliness of additional contentions 12-1 and 12-2 are appropriate and should be sustained.
Contention 14-1 is unrelated to withdrawn Contention 7.
The conten-l l
tion concerns the likelihood of criticality excursions as the result of
l some hypothetic.al accident rather than with any release of radioactivity through the containment ventilation system.
This is another accident contention which Intervenors are trying to tie to withdrawn Contention 7.
Objections to this contention on the basis that it is untimely are app.opriate and should be sustained.
Contention 16-1 refers to the increased existence of plutonium on the site which would somehow increase leakage of the " radioactive ma t ter. " No attempt is made by Intervenors either to explain what radio-active matter they are speaking of, how this contention increases the specificity of withdrawn Contention 7 or relates to the same subject matter as that contention.
As the Staff has mentioned previously, this contention is so vague as not to be able to be litigated in this proceeding.
See NRC Staff Response to Additional Contentions at 17.
Since -this contention is not concerned with release increases through the containment ventilation system, objections to its timeliness are appropriate and should be sustained.
Intervenors argue that, even though they never raised this argument before and did not file their additional contentions until after'the close of discovery, that failure should be excused.
The grounds for this request are that they had a lot of information to read through, and that there would be no delays since. they had submitted interrogatories which anticipated the additional contentions.
First of all they have not shown how any of the information they received in fiay of 1981 lead l
to the development of contentions which they allege are within the same subject matter parameters as either withdrawn Contention 4 or withdrawn Contention 7.
This failure coupled with the fact that most of the 4
e-+
yr --- r p.+,,
,.,.w,
--.-.-.-..w-
~ -,,
.g 7.,
7
N 16 -
contentions which Intervenors allege relate to these withdrawn contentions do not actually do so, make it necessary for the Board to deny 'Intervenors' request and view all these contentions as untimely.
In addition, it must be remenbered that interrogatories which do not relate to the subject matter in controversy are objectionable.
Therefore, Intervenors did nothing in effect to avoid delay but created it.
C.
Intervenors Have Failed to Establish That a Balancing of the Five Factors Warrants the Admission of Their Additional Contentions.
Intervenors now allege #or the first time that c balancing of the five factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 9 2 714(a) weighs in favor of the admission of their additional contentions.33/ The Staff previously pointed out that Intervenors had failed to establish any good cause for filing their additional contentions, that there existed another means by i
11/ The five factors to be considered by the Board are:
"(1)
Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
(ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
~'
(iii) 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 petiti,oner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding."
,-e
,.e
.%m.
,,-..y-,.
- - s
which certain of their interests could be protected, that they had failed to show an ability to contribute to the develop 1ent of a sound record, and'th'at the admission of these additional contentions would substantially broaden the issues and delay the proceeding.
NRC Staff Response to Additional Contentions at 2-7.
Intervenors' present arguments do nothing to controvert the Staff's conclusions.
Intervenors have elected to focus primarily on the delay factor.
They also argue that previous delays in the proceeding constitute good cause for this late filing of their additional contentions.
Intervenors' reply at 14-16.
Intervenors allege that t'ey could not have filed their additional contentions earlier and, therefore, have good cause for filing them at this late stage in the proceeding.
However, ar demon-strated in Section III.D, infra, Contentions 1 through 14 and 17 relate to information which could have been derived had Intervenors read Li;ensee's original application for this spent fuel pool capacity expansion amendment and the additional questions posed by the Staff and answered by the Licensee.
Intervenors do not attempt to argue that i
Contention 16 is based on the SE or EIA so that this contention could clearly have been filed at any time in the long history of this pro-ceeding.J2/ Therefore, Intervenors have failed to establish any good cause for the filing of these late additional contentions.
Since Intervenors have failed to establish any good cause for their late filing, they bear a heavier burden with respect to the remaining 12/ Contention 15 has been withdrawn by Intervenors.
Intervenors' reply at 13.
ry.--*m-2 c
e-m
- - ~, -
,.--,e
l factors. Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3),
ALAB-431, 6 NRC 460, 462 (1977).
They have failed to satisfy this burden.
Intervenors have not made any attempt to show in what way they will be able to contribute to the development of a sound record on the additional contentions they now propose. They have not stated, for example, that they will be able to present any testimony with regard to these additional contentijns. Therefore, as with good cause, this factor weighs heavily against the admission of the plethora of issues proposed by Intervenors as matters in controversy in this proceeding.
Intervenors also do not address the fact that they have another forum in whic' to protect their interest.
As the Staff has previously h
noted, many of their contentions are far broader than the proposed action pending before this Board. Tt.e use of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 of the Commission's regulations provides an opportunity to bring these broader interests to the Commission's attention.
As far as the fourth factor is concerned, the Staff has already pointed out that Intervenors are already a party to this proceeding and that they could represent their own interests.
The Staff also p*ointed out that their interests were exemplified by their original contentions.
As noted by the Staff, Intervenors' additional contentions represent an expansion of their interest which should not be permitted by the Board.
' NRC Staff Response to Additional Contentions at 5-6.
The final factor, the ' ne to which Intervenors devote their o
principal attention, concerns whether these late-filed contentions will broaden the issues to be litigated or delay the proceeding.
Intervenors argue that somehow the delay which their contentions will cause was
,+
-.-r---
n s-,-m
precipitated by the Staff and Licensee.
Contrary to Intervenors' asser-tion the delay factor relates to the future course of the proceeding.
Intervenors state, without support for their assertion, that these 18 odditional contentions, with all of their subparts, would not delay the proceeding appreciably since in their view, the hearing will not com-mence for sor.e months anyway.
They completely have failed to address the first part of the fif th factor, whether the late-filed contentions will broaden the issues in this proceeding.
Since at least 15 of the remaining 17 late-filed contentions relate to issues not previously raised by any of the admitted contentions, there would be a very defi-nite broadening of the issues in controversy in this proceeding.
Inter-
~
venors also fail to address the fact that Staff resources would have to be committed to the preparation of testimony on these issues.
There is also a potential for more discovery relating to these additional contea-tions were they to be admitted as issues in this proceeding.
Intervenors' assertion, if their interrogatories are fully answered they would seek no more discovery does notning to insure against this potential delay for discovery.
Delay of this proceeding would occur if these donten-tions were admitted.
Intervenors argue that they attempted to avoid delay by asking interrogatories which anticipated _ these additional contentions.
This drgument is unconvincing.
Intervenors ra'ther encourage delay, since by the rules of the Commis'sion discovery is limited to the matters in controversy.
10 C.F.R. s 2.'740(b)(1). 'For the reasons just stated,
Intervenors fail to show how this final factor would weigh in favor of the admission of their additional contentions.
Intervenors cite the case of Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant),
CLI-75-4, 1 NRC 273 (1975), for the proposition that where a safety issue is concerned, a balancing of the five factors is automatically weighed in favor of Intervenors. The case is inapposite. The Can11ssion did not say that the County of Erie in that case was allowed to inter-vene because they were presenting some important safety issue.
Rather the Commission clearly stated that the County's issues were substantially identical to issues raised by other parties and that, therefore, their participation would not cause further delay of the proceeding.
Id. at 276. The Commission pointed out that this late intervenor would have to take the proceeding as it found it, and did not provide the County with the opportunity to expand the issues to be considered in the proceeding.
Therefore, this case did not support Intervenors' position that, because they allege their additional contentions represent safety issues, the five factors must be disregarded.
I D.
Intervenors Have Failed to Establish That Their Additional Contentions Are Based on New Information Contained in the SE and EIA.
The negotiated schedule, as adopted oy the Licensing Board in its Order Following Special Prehearing Conference, allowed for the filing of additional contentions " based on new information contained in the SER and EIA."
LBP-80-4, supra, at 134.
In the filing made by Intervenors on September 4,1981, no attempt was made to show that any of the additional
contentions related to such new information.
Intervenors now allege in their latest filing that additional Contentions 1 through 10 and 12 through 14 are based on new information in the SE and EIA. This argunent is~ without merit.E Intervenors have also alleged that they are providing additional basis for some contentions.
The Staff will address this' additional basis. This document should be considered in -
tandem with our response to Intervenors' additional contentions. The Staff's objections as set forth in that response remain valid.
Contention 1-1 Intervenors claim that Contention 1-1 is based on 5 5.3.2 of the Staff's EIL Intervenors' reply at 7.
However, the information in
$ 5.3.2 does not constitute new infomation. The Licensee in its
- application submitted in April of 1979 specifically refers to the Krypton-85 to be released from the expanded spent fuel pool.
Spent Fuel Rack Addition, Environmental Impact Evaluation, Section 3.2 (hereinafter Environmental Impact Evaluation).
If Intervenors had a concern about Krypton-85 or indeed any of the radionuclides to be found in the spent fuel pool, this concern could have been raised as a result of the i
13/' The Staff is not considering in this document Contentions 9-1, 11-1, 11-2 and 18.
Intervenors have not added anything to their position regarding these contentions. Therefore, the Staff relies on its previously subn.itted response to Intervenors' additional contentions with respect. to Contentions 9-1, '11-1, and 11-2.
With respect to Contention 18 Intervenors merely state that they have become aware of a request for a zoning variance.
Intervenors have
~
made no attempt to cure the defects in-this contention discussed in the Staff's response to their additional contentions. Therefore, the Staff relies on.that response and will not reiterate its position concerning additional Contention 18.
m
discussion in the Licensee's application. What Intervenors are really arguing is that the Licensee's application is deficient, since the EIA constitutes the Staff's review. This concern (1) expands the contention and (2) should have been raised as a result of the study of the applica-tion much earlier in this proceeding. The Staff has not provided any n;w information in its EIA with regard to containment shell failure and the resulting releases.
If Intervenors believe a deficiency existed, it was a deficiency discoverable from the application itself. Therefore, this contention is not based on new information. Even if Intervenors' argument that these contentions were not untimely because they were filed within the 20 days prescribed in the negotiated schedule for the filing of additional contentions was accepted, the argument would not apply to this contention since it is not related to new information in the SE or EIA.
In addition, Intervenors are now attempting to expand the scope with their additional Contention 1-1.
That additional con-1 tention made no mention of accident considerations.
Intervenors are attempting here to file yet another contention which lacks basis set forth with reasonable specificity, is untimely, and for which th'ere is no good cause for late filing.
Contention 2-1 Contention 2-1 relates to Intervenors' belief that defective spent fuel assemblies should be encapsulated before being placed in the spent fuel pool.
Intervenors attempt to relate this contention to Section 5.3.3.
of the Staff's EIA.
Intervenors' reply at 8.
They state that the Staff
" recognizes" in this section, that there will be more radwaste from the
plant as a result of the expansion. The Staff fails to see any logical connection between this section of the EIA and the need to encapsulate fu el '.
In addition, information concerning the radionuclides in the spent fuel pool was specifically set forth by Licensee in its application in Section 3.2.3 of its Environmental Impact Evaluation. Therefore, this contention is not based on any new information set forth in the Staff's SE or EIA. There is no reason why this contention should be admitted as a matter in controversy in this proceeding.
Contention 3-1 In Contention 3-1 Intervenors contend that containment should be isolated during fuel transfer operations.
Intervenors state that this i
contention relates to Sections 3.3 and 3.3.1 of the Staff's SE.
Inter-venors' reply at 8.
However, in the discussion of this contention Inter-venors contend that Licensee's list of precautions to be taken during fuel handling operations does not include containment isolation. This list is not a new one. The list appears in response to NRC question No. 3 in a letter from D. P. Hoffman (Consumers) to D. L. Zeimann (NR&) dated October 19,1979 (hereinafter Hoffman letter). The list in that letter does not mention containment isolation.
Therefore, Intervenors could have raised this contention earlier in this proceeding based on Licensee's submittals. The contention does not relate to any new information in the Staff's SE or EIA and should not be admitted.
Contention 4-1 Contention 4-1 concerns Intervenors belief that there should be t
~
monitoring of ambient radiation levels during the proposed modi fication. They attenpt to relate this to Section 5.3.3 of the EIA and Staff statements concerning the decontanination of the failed fuel rack.
Intervenors' reply at 8-9.
Licensee's proposal concerning the failed fuel rack is contained in responses to NRC questions 1 and 9 in the Hof fman letter of October 19,1979.3S/ Therefore, this contention is not based on any new information contained in the Staff's SE or EIA.
Intervenors also mention as a basis for this contention the case of Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant), LBP-77-51, 6 NRC 265, 277 (1977).
This does nothing to support their argunent that this contention was based on any new information.
If Intervenors are attempting to use this case as the basis which was previously lacking for this contention, the attempt fails.
Intervenors have not explained how the situation at Prairie Island compares t;ith the situation at Big Rock. For example, the Licensing Board in its decision refers to the necessity for 240 fuel movements.
Intervenors have not attempted to demonstrate that the same situation exists at Big Rock.
LBP-77-51, supra at 277, Para. 33.
14/ Originally Licensee discussed the possibility of moving the failed fuel rack in Section 3.2,3, "In-plant Radiological Impacts," of the Environmental Impact Evaluation submitted in April of 1979.
The answers to NRC questions 1 and 9 informed the Staff that the rack would be decontaminated and stored onsite.
Contention 5-1 In Contention 5-1 Intervenors contend that failed fuel racks should be shipped offsite whole.
Intervenors attempt to relate this contention to the EIA by pointing to a statement in Section 5.3.3 and saying that that statement is confusing. The intent of the Licensee with respect to the disposal of the failed fuel rack is clearly stated in response to question 9 in the Hoffman letter dated October 19, 1979. This intention is clearly repeated in Section 5.3.3 of the Staff's EIA.
Therefore, this contention is not related to new information contained in the Staff's SE or EIA. Once again Intervenors point to a previous case where the rack was evidently shipped offsite as additional basis for their contention. However, the case is not a new one, and could have been used as the basis for a contention much earlier in this proceeding.
In addition, Intervenors make no attempt to even allege why because it was done at another facility it should be done at Big Rock Point. This basis is still insufficient for admission of this contention.3EI i
Contention 6-1 Contention 6-1 advocates the necessity for a limit on the weight and height at which loads may be carried over the spent fuel pool.
Intervenors attempt to relate this contention to Section 3.4.1.1 of the 1
SE which they say does not contain an analysis for the drop of the 24-ton
---15/ It should be noted that in Prarie Island, supra, the Board's concern was what method of offsite disposal should be used, not whether the racks should remain onsite or be shipped offsite.
LBP-77-51, supra, at 293.
transfer cask.
Intervenors' reply at 9-10.
Licensee's position with regard to the 24-ton fuel transfer cask is first mentioned in Section 7.2 of the Licensee's Description and Safety Analysis submitted in' April of 1979. The 24-ton cask was discussed further in a letter from D. A. Bixell (Consumers) to D. L. Ziemann (NRC) (Bixell letter) containing the reponse to NRC question 13. That letter was dated October 1,1979. The 24-ton cask is discussed in Section 3.4.1.1 of the Staff's SE.
This section contains a review of the Licensee's submittals on the subject. Therefore, this contention is not based on new information contained in the SE.
Again a previous spent fuel pool case is mentioned.
Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), LBP-78-32, 8 NRC 413, 424-25 (1978).
Since Intervenors have failed to show a similarity between that case and this one, the case does not provide the basis required by 10 C.F.R.
@ 2.714(b) of the Commission's regulations.
Contention 7-1 Contention 7-1 alleges that a pool cover is necessary to preclude the drop of heavy loads in the pool.
Intervenors attempt to rel' ate this contention to Section 3.4.1.1 of the SE.
Intervenors' reply at 10.
However, there is no information in that document which would point to the necessity for such a pool cover.
In addition, discussions of which loads will be moved in the vicinity of the spent fuel pool may be found in Section 7.2 of the License,e's Description and Safety Analysis sub-mitted in April of 1979, the Bixell letter of October 1,1979, the Hoffman letter of October 19, 1979 (response to question 11) and a letter from D. P. Hoffman (Consumers) to D. L. Ziemann (NRC) dated January 7, 1980.
_ ~
Therefore, this contention does not relate to any new information con-tained in the SE.
As additional basis for this contention Intervenors allege that such a cover is being used at the Pebble Springs facility.
Again they make no attenpt to show the similarities between the two facilities to demonstrate that a pool cover is either practical or necessary at Big Rock. LBP-78-32, supra at 433-34 n.9.. This conten-tion demonstrates the importance of such a showing. To the Staff's knowledge the Pebble Springs facility has never even been constructed.
This contention should not be admitted as a matter in controversy in this proceeding.
Contention 8-1 In Contention 8-1 Intervenors contend that boration of the pool during rack installation is necessary to prevent criticality.
Inter-venors attempt to relate this contention to the SE by saying that the Staff does not say whether the pool will be borated.
Intervenors' reply at 10-11. The question of pool boration was specifically answered by Licensee in the Bixell letter of October 1,1979 where, in respo'nse to NRC question 16, Licensee stated:
"There is no provision for borating i
the fuel pool water." Therefore, this contention is not based on new infonnation contained in the SE or.EIA.
Intervenors once again state as additional basis for this contention that it was done in another case, 9
without describing why the'two cases are similar, f
i I
l Contention 10-1 Intervenors here contend that analysis of the effects of tornado and turbine missiles must be done as was done in North Anna because of this expansion.
Intervenors' reply at 11.
Intervenors claim that the SE is deficient because it does not analyze such tornado missiles.
Id.
Intervenors themselves point out that this information is not present in the EIA. Therefore, the contention perforce casinot be related to new information contained in the SE or EIA. The fact that a similar contention was raised in the North Anna proceeding, Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-25, 10 NRC 234, 241-42 (1979), does not provide sufficient basis for the admission of this contention, especially since they have not attempted to describe how these cases will be similar.
In addition, a reading of the Licensee's application would have provided Intervenors with informa-tion as to whether or not a tornado missile analysis had been conducted for this proposed expansion. Therefore, this contention is not based on new information and could have been raised earlier in this proceeding.
i Contention 12-1 i
Intervenors contend that steam explosions and " meltdowns" must be considered in this proceeding.
Inter'enors' reply at 12. They attempt to relate this to the section of the SE dealing with heat load increase due to the proposed spent fuel pool capacity expansion.
Ici,.
This subject was treated in Section 3.1 of Licensee's Environmental Impact Evaluation submitted in April of 1979. Therefore, the contention is not based on any new information contained in the Staff's SE.
Contention 13-1 Intervenors here contend that the loss of offsite power would deprive the spent fuel pool of its cooling system among other systems not enumerated by Intervenors.
Intervenors attempt to relate this contention to the Staff's SE by stating that it is not clear whether the 11 gpm makeup capacity mentioned in that document is presently available or "still in the design stage."
Intervenors' reply at 12.
In its June 20, 1980 submittal, Licensee specifically states that the 11 gpm makeup capability "will be available prior to the completion of the spent fuel pool rack modification project." Therefore, any concern Intervenors now have about the 11 gpm makeup capability is not based on new informa-tion contained in the SE.
Contention 14-1 Contention 14-1 is concerned with the likelihood of criticality excursions after an accident which drops a heavy load into the expanded spent fuel pool.
Intervenors merely state this contention is related to the materials section of the Staff's SE.
Intervenors' reply at:12-13.
No further explanation is given of why this is based on new information.
The Staff sees no new information in that section which has not been previously treated in the Licensee's application and answers to NRC's questions.
Contentions 17-1 and 17-2..
Intervenors first argue that Contention 17 is based on seismic considerations found in the Staff's SE.
Intervenors state that it was
30 -
fron these seismic considerations that they learned that the plant was not " seismically qualified."
Intervenors' reply at 6.
This argument is not consistent with the situation in this proceeding.
The Staff's SE points out that the response spectra used in the design of the spent fuel racks were those contained in a report submitted in support of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) review of seismic issues. The SEP was initiated in 1977.
SE at 3.4.1.1.
The purpose of the program is to systematically compare important features of the eleven oldest nuclear power plants in the United States, including the Big Rock facility, with current NRC design criteria for plants.35/ The SEP program is designed to determine the overall safety significance of differences in operating plants fran current licensing criteria with a view toward developing a framework for making integrated and balanced backfitting decisions taking into consideration the actual status of all plant features important to safety.31! An evaluation of the adequacy of the seismic designs of SEP plants is part of the overall safety determination being made.
A methodology using site-specific spectra to realistically assess the seismic hazard at reactor sites has See SECY-77-S61, " Systematic Evaluation of Operating Reactor--
~--16/ Phases I and II" (Oct. 26,1977); SECY-76-545, "The Systematic j
Evaluation of Operating Nuclear Power Plants" (Nov. 12,1976).
17/ The Commission approved the objectives and general approach of the proposed SEP, Memorandum for Lee V. Gossick, EDO, from Samuel J.
Chilk, Secretary to the Commission re:
SECY-76-545 (January 27, 1977).
(The ikmorandum is an attachment to SECY-77-561, which is cited in the previous fo'otnote.)
l
=
,-m-
?m..e e
w m
been developed and is being used in the SEP program.$ /
The estimate of seismic hazard developed using this method is being used to evaluate the seismic capability of safety related structures, systems and components in reaching a conclusion on the safety significance of any differences fran current NRC standards as applied to the Big Rock facility.
" Bases For Continued Operation Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Station" trans-mitted by letter from D. M. Crutchfield (NRC) to D. P. Hoffman (Consumers) dated September 29,1981(Attachment 1). The site-specific spectra contained in the Staff's June 17, 1981 letter are lower than those used by Licensee in the report referenced in the Staff's SE at Q 3.4.1.1.
See n.18, supra.
The Staff's review of seismic issues in the SEP is expected to be canpleted by January 1983. See Attachment 1.
Intervenors were provided by the Staff with a description of the SEP Topics being considered and the status of these topics in response to their interrogatories to the Staff. This response was filed on July 15, 1980.
Licensee also discussed the seismic situation with regard to various spent fuel pool systems in its answers to Christa-itaria's interrogatories 3-5 and 3-6.
These answers were filed o'n August 22 and September 10, 1980.
In fact, it was the Licensee's answer to Christa-Maria's interrogatories and not the SE which used the d
~~18/ See NUREG/CR-1582, Seismic Hazard Analysis; Vol.1 - Executive Summary (under preparation); Vol. 2 - A methodology for the Eastern United States (Aug.1980); Vol. 3 - Solicitation of Expert Opinion (Aug. 1980); Vol. 4 - Application of. Methodology, Results, and
~
Sensitivity Studies (Oct.1981); and Vol. 5 - Review Panel, Ground Motion Panel and Feedback Results (Oct.1981). And See NRC evalua-tion and endorsement of Big Rock Point site specific spectra (i.e.,
seismic hazard) letter from D. M. Crutchfield (NRC) to all SEP owners (except San Onofre) dated June 17, 1981.
language " seismically qualified." Therefore, it cannot be said that additional contention 17 is based on new information cantained in either the SE or EIA.
Intervenors argue that the risk to _the public health and safety should not be increased by allowing this spent fuel pool expansion until the completion of the SEP seismic review.
Intervenors' reply at 5.
They argue that the seismic hazard at Big Rock is a real one based on a report of Professor William J. Hall dated July 15, 1981 and a memorandum of T. K. Cheng, Systematic Evaluation Program Branch, DOR, dated December 15, 1978.
Professor Hall's report was attached to a letter from D. M. Cr'utchfield (NRC) to D. P. Hoffnan (Consumers), dated Septem-ber 29,1981 ( Attachment 1).
In that letter the Staff concluded that Big Rock Point could continue to operate pending completion of the seismic review. This conclusion was based on the low seismic hazard presented by the facility.
Professor Hall while raising some concerns.
noted by him on his visit also concluded that due to the low seismic hazard presented by the facility it could continue to operate pending completion of seismic review.
As mentioned above, Intervenors also rely on the Cheng memo for the proposition that the seismic hazard at Big Rock is a real one. They state the memorandum noted the exi.stence of ancient faults across Lake Michigan. They fail to point out the cont' ext in which that statement was made. The memorandum actually states:
"4.
The licensee indicated that some ancient faults were located across Lake Michigan and they will not affect the local seismicity at the site. The information of faulting is documented in the PSAR of Haven site, Wisconsin Electric Power Co."
The review of this SEP topic as with many other such topics is still in For the reasons just stated, Intervenors have not demonstrated progress.
that the seismic hazard is in fact a real one.
Intervenors argue that the risk from a seismic event should not be increased by allowing more spent fuel to be stored onsite. They neglect to mention, however, that even were this expansion to be approved no more spent fuel than could be stored onsite now would be stored onsite prior to 1984. They fail to point to any other way in which this expansion would increase the risks from a seismic event at Big Rock.
Intervenors also fail to renenber that after the next refueling Licensee loses full core discharge capability.
While the Staff does not consider that loss to be a safety concern, it recognizes that retention of full core discharge capability would be desirable.
Intervenors have failed to show that they could not have raised this contention much earlier in this proceeding, and as discussed in the Staff's response of September 15, 1981, have failed to meet the basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a) of the Commission's regulations.
i CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Staff concludes that:
1)
Neither the negotiated schedule as dopted by the Board in its prehearing conference order nor statements by the Board members relieves Intervenors of'the obligation to balance the five factors before these additional contentions are found admissible.
34 -
2)
There are no contentions with the possible exception of Conten-tion 1-1 which in any way relate to the previously withdrawn Contentions 4 and 7.
Even Contention 1-1 was not filed before the close of discovery as required by the Board's Order.
3)
A balancing of the five factors does not weigh in favor of the adnission of Intervenors' additional contentions.
4)
The additional bases provided for various contentions do not meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. f 2.714.
5)
None of the Intervenors' additional contentions are based on new infonnation contained in the SE and EIA.
Even if these contentions are considered timely, they are still inadmissible for failure to meet the requirements of the Board's Order Following Prehearing Conference.
. Respectfully submitted, E (l_ / d l Y { f Y Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, liaryland i
this 6th of November, 1981.
i.
y
=
_-.m y
in UNITED STATES
[h},
+
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8
,E W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'o, F
September 29, 1981
%...../
Docket No. 50-155 LS05 09-073 Mr. David P. Hoffman Nuclear Licensing Administrator Consumers Power Company 1945 W. Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 r
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
SUBJECT:
SEP TOPIC III-6, SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWE-R STATION In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(f) of the. Comission's Regulations, our letter to you dated August 4,1980 requested that you submit plans and proceed with a seismic reevaluation program for Big Rock Point facility and that you provide justification for your conclusion that continued operation is. justified in the interim until the seismic reevaluation and any necessary upgrading, as results from this reevaluation, is completed. The staff has completed the review of the information supporting continued operation contained in your letters dated February 23, April 25,1979; February 13, March 31, October 10, 1980; and July 27, 1981 and the meeting summaries dated August 7, 1979 and June 22, 1981.
Furthermore, the staff and its consultant (Prof.
W.J. Hall of University of Illinois) visited the site to evaluate the seismic resistance of the facility.
As a result of this review, the staff has concluded that continued operation of the Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant is justified under the following conditions:
(1) results of seismic analysis are submitted for NRC review on the schedule specified in your July 27, 1981 letter; and (2) in~ case of any modifications shown to be necessary as a result of the seismic analysis which are not implemented by January 1,1983,
~
the schedule for implementation r.nd additional justification for continued operation over the period of this implementation are to be submitted and will be reviewed on~a case by case basis.
o 20 N
~
2-Mr. David P. Hoffman Enclosed is our safety evaluation report.
Sincerely, e
C Dennis M. Crutchfield, C f
Operating Reactors Branch #5 Division of Licensing
~
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page' M
4 4
e t
}
d e
e
= w.
e
Mr. David P., offman H
o cc U. S. Environmental Protection Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary.
Agency Consumers Power Coapany Federal Activities Branch 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Region V Office ATIN: EIS COORDINATOR 230 South Dearborn Street Judd L. Bacon, Esquire Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Consumers Power Coapany 212 West Michigan Avenue Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman Jackson, Michigan 49201 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Joseph Gallo, Esquire Washington, D. C.
20555 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1120 Connecticut Avenue
~
Dr. Oscar H. Paris Room 325 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D. C.
20036 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Peter W. Steketee, Esquire Washington, D. C.
20555 505 Peoples Building Mr. Frederick J. Shon Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory.Conndssion Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Atoanc Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Washington, D. C.
20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant Washington,' O. C.
20555 ATTN: Mr. C. J. Hartman Plant Superintendent Mr. John O'Neill, II Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Route 2, Box 44 Maple City, Michigan 49664
, Christa-Maria Route 2, Box 108C Charlevoix Public Library Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 107 Clinton Street Charlevoix, Michigan William J. Scanlon, Esquire 2034 Pauline Boulevard
- Chairran Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 County Board of Supervisors Charlevoix County Resident Inspector Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Big Rock Point Plant c/o U.S. NRC Office of the Governor (2)
RR #3, Box 600 Room 1 - Capitol Building Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Lansing, Michigan 48913 Mr. Jim E. Mills Herbert Sennel Route 2, Box 103C Council for Christa Maria, et al.
Charlevnix, Michigan 49720 Urban Law Institute Antioch School of Law Thomas S. Moore 263316th Street, NW Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal B,oard-Washington, D. C.
20460 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
Washington, D. C.
205 G
BASES FOR CONTINUED OPERATION BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER STATI0N INTRODUCTION In accordance with the Commission Regulation 10 CFR 50.54(f), a letter was issued on August 4,1980 to Consumers Power Company requesting the licensee to provide justification for continued operation until their seismic reevalua-tion of their facility is complete.
In response to this letter, the licensee submitted its basis for continued operation on October 10, 1980. On January 9,1981, a summary of seismic reanalysis completed to date for the plant facilities was submitted.
In this summary report, safety margin' of plant structures and systems (a total of 15 structures, systems and subsystems was included) was demonstrated. More recently (June 19, 1981), additional-On information for justification for continued operation was provided.
the staff and its consultant, Professor W. J. Hall of June 30,1981, University of Illinois,.madb a visit' to the plant to discuss the seismic capability of structures, systems and components at the Big Rock Point Plant with Consumers Power representatives. The staff's evaluation of the basis for continued operation follows. -
Seismic Hazard Consideration The staff, in its letter dated August 4, '1980, directed the licensee to conduct the seismic reevaluation of Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant using the site specific spectrum (0.11g peak ground acceleration) as the free field ground motion. The adequacy of this site specific spectrum was confirmed by the staff through a letter dated June 17, 1981. This ground motion is equivalent to an earthquake with return period between 1,000 years and 10,000 years.
Seismic Resistance of Structures, Systems and Components In response to NRC letters dated January 15, 1979 and August 4,1980, the licensee completed a limited seismic reanalysis on Big Rock Point plant facility (15 items were analyzed including most of safety related struc-A summary of these results wah submitted tures as well as some systems).
to the staff on January 9,1981 as part of justification for continued Regulatory Guide 1.60 Spectrum scaled to 0.12g peak ground operation.
This spectrum completely acceleration was used for input ground motion.
enveloped the site specific spect. rum recommended by the staff, i.e., it From the preliminary is more conservative than the site specific spectrum ~.'
review of the summary report and other information received from the licensee (letters dated February 23, April 25 of-1979, February 13, March 31, October an.d meeting summaries dated August 7,1979 and 10 of 1980, July 27,1981 June 22,1981), the significant findings are highlighted below:
6 e
The criteria and analytical procedures used for the structures in the reanalysis are generally acceptable to the staff.
The results presented by the licensee indicated that all items ident-ified were adequate for the postulated earthquake (0.12g Regulatory Guide 1.60 Spectrum) with the following exceptions:
(1) steel bracing and steel column bases of service building. complex
' were food to be overstressed; (2) allowable strecses would be exceeded at junction of 24" recircu-lation pipe and 4" cross-connecting loop and undesirable dis-placements were found ~at this junction.
The. inadequacies identified above'ere considered insignificant because:
(a) conservatism does exist in the original design with respect to ductility, damping, actual material strength, etc..and (b) conserva-tive seismic inpdt (in comparison with the staff recommended site specific spectrum) e s used in this analysis.
In addition,'the staff and:it:.c.onsultant (Prof. W. J. Hall of Univ. of Ill.) visited the plant sits to evaluate the seismic resistance of the fac :lity.
The report of :taff's consultant regaraing the basis for continued operation of the facility is attached (Enclosure 1). One area, the threaded piping of the fire protection system, was identified as a r possible weak link in the facility by the consultant. The fire protection systen is the primary source of water for the primary and backup core spray systems as well as the backup supply for the shell side of the emergency condenser. The licensee in.a letter dated July ?7,1931 stated that a redundant source of water for the core spray system isiprov'ided by the Post Incident System. This piping rystem is completely welded and connected to the yard loop piping that has been seismically analyzed. As far as th'e plants capacity to make up water to the pimary coolant system and the emergency condenser, alternate sources (water can be supplied through a welded pipe system from the DNA storage tank or from the domes-tic water syste.a onsite with the water sources beitig the domestic water accumulator, the well water storage tank via the domestic water pump, or ultimately the deep well pump, if the DM4 tank becomes depleted) do exist to provide a reasonable degree of redundancy for the removal of decay heat.
The consultant recommended that continued operation 'in the interim should be permitted.
Since early 1979, the folowing additional seismic issues have been addres--
sed, resolved or are being resolved under the SEP seismic review:
In response to NRC "Achorage and Support of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment" issues dated January 1,1980 and July 28, 1980, a total of 52 items was inspected by the licensee and its consultants (CPCo l etters dated February 13, 1980 and March 31,.1980). The necessary modifications a
of equipient anchorage and support identified during field walk-down were installed based on the results.of analysis performed to a 0.12g R. G.
1.60 Spectrum input (CPCo letters dated October 10, 1980 and January 22 and March 26 of 1981).
~
3
. The licensee, in response to NRC letters dated August 4,1980 and April 24, 1981, has initiated a seismic reevaluation program.that is schedul-ed for completlon by the end of 1982 CONCLUSION Based on the results provided to date from the analyses of the plant structures and systems / subsystems, the proper anchorage and support of safety related electrical components, the alternate cooling water sup-
- plies, and the inherent capacity of the remaining plant struc'ures, t
systems e.nd components as well as the low seismic hazard (NRC June 17, 1981 letter) associated with the Big Rock Point site, the staff concludes that the continued operation of Eig Rock Point Neclear Power Plant during the seismic reevaluation of the facility and the implementation of any modification shown to be~necessar;' as a result of seismic reanalysis is y
_ ~ justified under the following conditions:
~(1) results 'of seismic analysis are submitted for NRC review on the schedule specified in the licensee's July 27, 1981' letter;~and
(2) in case of any. modifications shown to be necessary as a result of,
the seismi.c analysis which 'are not implemented by January 1,1983, the schedule for implementation and additional justification for continued operation over the period of this implementation are to be submitted and will be reviewed on a case by case basis.
- M o
4 4
l 1
. -.