ML20039D472
| ML20039D472 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1981 |
| From: | Ketchen E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201040132 | |
| Download: ML20039D472 (61) | |
Text
..
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
)
Docket No. 50-413
)
50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station,
)
r g
Units 1 and 2)
)
o q)'
c,
/
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENTS S+'/ < '
3 ', F.a 0F CONTENTIONS BY PETITIONERS TO INTERVENE 3
t, 96
~
I.
INTRODUCTION k %#,
%x e
l -.
r In accordance with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's
(" Licensing Board") November 5,1981 Order, on December 9,1981, Palmetto Alliance, Carolina Environmental Study Group ("CESG"), and the Charlotte-Mechlenburg Environmental Coalition ("CMEC") supplemented their respective petitions to intervene with listed contentions pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 92.714(b). Safe Energy Alliance (" SEA") did not supplement its petition to intervene as required by 10 C.F.R. 62.714(b).
The NRC Staff files this response to the supplemental petitions pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.714(c), and the Licensing Board's November 5, 1981 Order.M To the extent r.oted the contentions advanced by the y07 If The Licensing Board's Order specified that the petitioners to intervene could file amended petitions to intervene with listed j/
contentions by December 9,1981.
Responses are due on December 30, 1981.
$2gg g 2$00$
3 if100 37
- D 0
g, PDR<
g i,
- petitioners to intervene should be rejected.
Petitioners' status as parties is also discussed.
J II.
BACKGROUND Pursuant to the " Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility Operating Licenses... and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing" published in the Federal Register on June 25,1981(46 Fed. Reg 32974 (1981)), CHEC, CESG and SEA each filed petitions to intervene and requests for a hearing on the issuance of operating licenses for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
The NRC Staff opposed the SEA petition for lack of standing but did not object to the CMEC and CESG petitions to intervene on standing grounds. / The Duke Power Company-(and othtr associated applicants) (" Applicants" or " Duke") did not oppose admission SI or CESGS/ as parties on standing grounds, but did oppose of CMEC 1
2/
"NRC Staff Response To Petitions To Intervene Submitted By Charlotte-Mechlenburg Environmental Coali ion, Carolina Environ-t mental Study Group, and Safe Energy Alliance," dated August 8,1981.
s 3/
" Applicants' Response To Charlotte-Mechlenburg Environmental Coalition Petition To Intervene And Request For Hearing," dated August 14, 1981.
4/
" Applicants' Response To Petition To Intervene Of Carolina Environmental Study Group," dated August 14, 1981.
.: SEA's intervention for failure to demonstrate an interest in the proceeding.E Palmetto Alliance filed an intervention petition on July 2,3j 1981.
Neither the NRC Staff,E nor DukeE opposed Palmetto Alliance's admission as a _ party on standing grounds.
The Licensing Board's November 5,1981 Order scheduled the special prehearing conference pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.751a to permit it to rule on petitions to intervene and to rule on petitioners' respective conten-tions.
Petitioners were d'rected to amend their respective petitions in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 62.714(a)(3).
The State of South Carolina also petitioned for leave to participate -
as an interested state pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 92.715(c) of the Comission's Rules of Practice.E It did not file contentions in response to the Licensing Board's November 5,1981 Order and, under the Commission's Rules of Practice, no contentions are required of an interested state.
a y
" Applicants' Response In Opposition To Petition To Intervene Of Safe Energy Alliance," dated August 14, 1981.
6/
"NRC Staff Response Tc Petition To Intervene And Request For Hearing of Palmetto Alliance," dated August 11, 1981.
_7]
" Applicants' Response To Palmetto Alliance Petition To Intervene And Request For Hearing," dated August 7,1981.
8f
" Petition for Intervention," dated July 27, 1981.
- We explain below the Commission's requirements for stating litigable contentions. We also address general natters raised by the respective aaended petitions and explain the Staff's position with respect to each contention.
It is the Staff's view that the supplemental petition of Palmetto Alliance states at least one litigable contention.
Accordingly, Palmetto Alliance, has standing and has stated at least one contention, and, therefore, should be admitted as a party to the proceeding.
CESG and CMEC have failedito state at least one admissible contention, and, therefore, should not be admitted as parties to the proceeding.
SEA, should be denied admission as a party.
Its original petition -
failed to demonstrate standing pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 552.714(a)(2)-and (d) requirements, and it failed to file an amended petition either curing this defect or listing contentions it seeks to litigate.
III. DISCUSSION AND STAFF POSITION ON SUPPLEMENTAL PETITIONS A.
Standards for Admission of Contentions The Commission's Rules of Practice specify standards for the admissibility of contentions.
In order for proposed contentions to be found admissible, they must raise issues within the scope of the issues set forth in the Notice of Hearing initiating the proceeding,E/ and comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714(b) and applicable 9/
Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),- ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167,170 (1976); Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263 (1979).
Cocnission case law.
Under 10'C.F.R. 92.714(b) a petitioner for intervention in Connission licensing proceedings must file a supplement to its petition:
which must include a list of the contentions which petitioner seeks to have litigated-in the matter, and the-bases.for each contention set forth with reesonable specificity.
A petitioner who has not filed a supplemental petition which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be admitted as an intervenor.
10 C.F.R. 92.714(b). The purpose of the basis requirement of 10 C.F.R. 92.714 is to (a) assure that the con-tention in question raises a matter appropriate for litigation in a particular proceeding,E (b) establish a sufficient foundation to warrant further inquiry into the subject matter addressed by the 10/ A contention must be rejected where:
-(a) it constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirements; (b) it challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (c) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the intervenor's view of what applicable policies ought to be; (d) 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 (e) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974).
- assertion,E and (c) put the other parties sufficiently on notice "so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." E In determining admissibility of a contention pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.714(b), a Licensing Board is not to reach the merits of the conten-tion. Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590,11 NRC 542, 548 (1980);
j Mississippi Power and Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973). As the Appeal Board instructed in Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 216-17 (1974), in assessing the acceptability of a contention as a basis for granting intervention:
"[T]he intervention board's task is to determine, from a scrutiny of what appears within the four corners of the contention as stated, whether (1) the requisite specificity exists; (2) there has baen an adequate delineation of the basis for the contention; and (3) the issue sought to be raised is cognizable in an individual licensing proceeding." (footnotes omitted)
Accord: Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
l ALAB-150, 6 AEC 811, 812 (1973).
If a contention meets these criteria (and petitioner otherwise satisfies the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 92.714(a)), the contention provides a foundation for granting inter-11/ Peach Bottom, ALAB-216, 8 AEC at 21.
12/ Peach Bottom, ALAB-216, 8 AEC at 20.
- vention " irrespective of whether resort to extrinsic evidence might establish the contention to be insubstantial."
Farley, 7 AEC st 217.
In addition to the specificity and basis requirements of 92.714(b),
certain other Comnission regulations and requirements are relevant to a detemination of the admissiblity of certain of the proposed contentions.
Under 10 C.F.R. 92.758, a party to a Commission licensing proceeding may not challenge in an adjudicatory proceeding any rule or regulation of the Comnission, except by way of a petition requesting that the application of a specified rule or regulation be waived or an exception nade for the particular proceeding.
No petition for waiver or exception having been filed by petitioners in this proceeding, the Staff has opposed the admission of certain proposed contentions which improperly challenge Commission rules or regulations.E
-13/ Palmetto Alliance, however, requests that it be permitted to seek an exception to or waiver of a regulation's application with respect to this proceeding, if the Licensing Board should find that any of its contentions constitute attacks upon any Commission regulation or rule. The Staff opposes such an anticipatory request.
If Palmetto Alliance believed any of its contentions constituted attacks on Commission regulations, it should have so stated and sought appropriate waivers or exceptions pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 92.758.
- B.
Supplemental Petitions b
1.
Palmetto Alliance Contentions Contention 1 Palmetto Alliance contends that Applicants and Staff have underestimated long tem somatic and genetic health effects of ionizing radiation from normal' operation and the uranium fuel cycle. This is the residual risk contention, which assumes releases are within existing guidelines.
The contention lacks specificity and basis.
The mere reference to the work of certain persons, "and others", not otherwise identified without any indication of how the analysis relied on by the Applicants or by the Staff underestimates ionizing radiation health effects does not provide a sufficient basis for admission of the contention under 10 C.F.R. 92.714(b).
Nor does the contention allege in any way that such residual risks would significantly affect the cost-14/ Palmetto Alliance's supplemental petition to intervene states that it reserves a right to amend er expand its supplemental petition to intervene. At the outset, the Commission's Rules of Practice do not permit parties to generally reserve a right to submit further contentions even though certain documents are yet to be published.
The contentions procedure set forth in 10 C.F.R. 92.714, and Commission decisions support the vicw that the FSAR and EROL provide sufficient information concerning the proposed license application that allows for fomulation of contentions. After the Board's rulings on contentions following the 10 C.F.R. 92.751a prehearing conference, unti.mely contentions may not be admitted as issues in the proceedings'except upon a balancing of the five factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 92.714(a)(1) for late filed petitions.
- Indeed, the bases upon which petitioner now seeks to " reserve", in the abstract, its right to file new or amended contentions (new information or other good cause) would be considered in the specific circumstances at the time petitioner actually seeks to raise new or amended contentions.
Petitioner cannot, however, reserve for now, and all time, any right to the admission of new or amended contentions.
4 benefit balance concerning operation of the Catawba reactors.
The-contention, therefore, should be rejected.
1E/
Contention 2, 5 and 10 Palmetto Alliance Contentions 2, 5, and 10 merely assert generalized concerns about the probabilities and consequences of serious accidents occurring at Catawba.
Its contentions are in effect an allegation without particularization that serious accidents covered by the Commission's Statement of Interim Policy 15/ are subject to litigation in this proceeding and that the Commission's Statement of Interim Policy has not been followed.
In its June,1980 statement of interim policy regarding accident considerations under NEPA, the Commission altered its previous policy of not considering the-effects of class 9 accidents in NRC environmental impact statements prepared in connection with construction permit and operating license applications..
45 Fed. Reg. 40101. The Commission expressly indicated that this change J
15/ Contention 10 asserts that there was inadequate consideration of the economic costs of a Class-9 accident at the construction permit review stage. The adequacy of the Commission's construction permit review is beyond the scope of this operating license proceeding.
The adequacy of that review was addressed at the construction permit
. stage and is not now open for relitigation.
In the Catawba construction penait proceeding the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's ruling omitting the consequences of containment breach, a class-9 accident, from consideration in the environmental balance under then existent law and policy. Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-355, 4 NRC 397, 415-16 (1976).
16/ " Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under the National
~~'
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Statement of Interim Policy,"
45 Fed. Reg.-40101 (June 13, 1980).
in policy should not be construed as any lack of confidence in any conclusions reached in previous impact statements regarding the environmental risks of accidents.
Consistent with its pre-existing policy, the Comnission also indicated that its policy change should not be used as a basis for expanding any ongoing proceeding absent a showing of special circumstances. 45 Fed. Reg. 40103. The Cammission then renewed its directive to the Staff that it identify to the Commission any cases that could warrant additional consideration of the consequences of serious accidents.
Id.
In this latter regard, the Commission's policy statement merely reiterated the Commission's position that individual consideration of class 9 accidents be confined to those cases presenting "special circumstances". See: Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), CLI-79-9,10 NRC 257, (1979);
Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2),
In the Black Fox decision, the Commission identified those kinds of "special circumstances" that might warrant additional consideration as follows: " higher population density, proximity to man-made or natural hazard, unusual site configuration, unusual design features, etc., i.e., circumstances where the environmental risk from such an accident if one occurred would be substantially greater than for an average plant." 11 NRC at 434-35.
The issue of when or whether special circumstances are present which would warrant more extensive consideration of class 9 accidents has also received adjudicatory consideration since the Commission's statement of interim policy. See, e.g., Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), et al., D.D.-80-22, 11 NRC
- 919 (1980); Houston Lighting $nd Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), Licensing Board (unpublished) (September 15, 1980).
The Allens Creek Board in Allens Creek succinctly concluded that "the Commission made it abundantly clear in the Black Fox decision and in its statement of interim policy that the Staff alone is to bring to the Commission's attention those cases that might warrant censideration of the environmental impact of the more severe kinds of very low probability accidents that are physically possible and that the decision to proceed with this consideration rests with the Commission and not with its adjudicatory tribunals." Allens Creek, supra, Slip op, at 4.
Such a situation does not obtain in the present case.
Catawba is a typical Westinghouse pressurized water reactor. There are no unique design characteristics.
Nor are there any unique siting characteristics.
Moreover, neither the Staff, nor the Palmetto Alliance contentions identify any man-made or natural hazards that constitute special circumstances.
Other than generalized assertions that environmental and economic consequences of serious accidents have not been considered and that a probabalistic risk assessment cannot be carried out, no reasonably specific basis is given for these contentions.
In this proceeding, the Staff has not identified any "special circumstances", in accordance with the Commission's Interim Statement of Policy, that would warrant early consideration of either additional features or other actions which would prevent or mitigate the consequences of serious accidents.
In any event, as noted in the above authority this is a decision that rests in the first instance with the Staff, rather than this Board, with the
Commission as the ultimate decision-maker.
In sum, even if this Licensing Board had jurisdiction to require additional consideration of Class 9 accidents, there are neither plant specific nor site specific grounds for doing so.
For the above reasons, Palmetto Alliance's Contentions 2, 5, and 10 are inadmissible and, therefore, should be rejected.
Contention 3 and 4 Palmetto Alliance Contentions 3 and 4 apparently seek to litigate whether Duke and State and local entities can meet the Commission's emergency planning regulations.
The Commission promulgated the current final rule on emergency planning on November 3,1980.E The Commission noted with' approval in the new emergency planning regulations, the use,' inter alia, of E
NUREG-0654 to provide guidance in developing plans for coping with E/ 45 Fed. Reg. 55402 (August 19, 1980), effective November 3, 1980.
E/ Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants for Interim Use and Comment, January 1980 (now revised as NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1).
)' emergencies and NUREG-0396E for establishing emergency planning zones (EPZs).
As far as EPZs are concerned, the Commission's final rule provides:
Generally, the plume exposure pathway EPZ for nuclear power plants shall consist of an area about 10 miles (16 km) in radius and the ingestion pathway-EPZ shall consist of an area about 50 miles (80 km) in radius. The exact size and configuration of the EPZs surrounding a particular nuclear power reactor shall be determined in relation to local emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such conditions as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries.
Palmetto Alliance Contention 3 seeks to litigate whether the 10 mile plume exposure EPZ is appropriate in that it does not include the communities of Charlotte, North Carolina and Gastonia, North Carolina and all of Rock Hill, South Carolina in the plume exposure pathway. This is an improper contention. The Commission's rules provide for protective actions for the plume exposure pathway EPZ which shall consist of an area of about 10 miles in radius with the exact size and shape to be determined based on demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries.
To the extent Palmetto Alliance is requesting the Licensing Board to consider a plume exposure EPZ significantly larger because the 10 mile regulatory requirement is generally inadequate, the contention amounts to an impermissible challenge to the Commission's regulations and, therefore, should be rejected.
10 C.F.R. 950.47(b) and 10 C.F.R. 92.758.
-19/ Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-0396, EPA 520/1-78-016, December 1978).
,: Even if this contention were not an impermissible challenge to the regulations, the contention is inadmissible on other grounds. The assertion that the normal 10 mile EPZ is inadequate is vague.
The proposed contention does not articulate any unique local characteristics which would warrant departure from the established regulatory limit.
Accordingly, the contention does not satisfy the specificity and basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. 92.714(b) and should be rejected.
Palmetto Alliance Contention 4 seeks to litigate the adequacy of state and local energency plans concerning both the plume exposure and ingestion pathway EPZs.
Palmetto Alliance alleges that neither state nor local emergency preparedness plans have been developed which protect people living within either the plume exposure or ingestion pathway EPZs.
The underlying basis for this contention, however, apparently assumes consideration of a plume exposure pathway much greater than "about 10 miles" since it includes Charlotte, North Carolina and Gastonia, North Carolina.
Thus construed, the contention amounts to an impermissible challenge to Commission regulations and should be rejected.10 C.F.R. 50.47(b) and 10 C.F.R. 62.758.
Contention 4 is also inadmissible because it lacks a basis with reasonable specificity. There are no alleoations of specific inadequacies in the level of State and local emergency planning, only a vague assertion that adequate protective measures have not been provided pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 650.47,10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, and NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
Thus, Contention 4 does not particularize how State, local, utility and other unidentified-" entities and persons" have not provided protective measures such as medical facilities, fire fighting
.- equipment, and law enforcement and social service capabilities, as alleged, in conformance with Cannission regulatory requirements and criteria.
To the extent that the contention seeks to litigate compliance with regulatory requirements regarding planning within the ingestion pathway, we believe that Palmetto Alliance has not specified an admissible contention.
For the above reasons, Contentions 3 and 4 should be rejected.
Contention 6 By this contention, Palmetto Alliance apparently seeks to litigate the adequacy of Duke's construction permit quality assurance program, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B.
Palmetto Alliance's contention is vague in that it fails to identify any specific inadequacies in quality control during construction demonstrating that the facility was not build as designed due to poor quality control.
It does not identify any specific programmatic requirements that are not met by the accepted QA program descriptioo canmitments.
Duke's construction program was approved in Commission decisions that have long been final agency actio1s. Duke Power Company _
(Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-34,1 NRC 626, 646-650 (1975), affirmed Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-355, 4 NRC 397 (1976).
In addition, no specific basis has been provided for the as:ertion that there has been either substandard workmanship or poor quality control during construction.
Unspecified and unsubstantiated complaints about alleged systematic plant construction
-a
,,-g
-s,
.- deficiencies and improper company pressure to approve faulty workmanship lack-sufficient specificity and basis to support admission of the contention.
For the above reasons, this contention should be rejected.
Contention 7 Petitioner, Palmetto Alliance, asserts that Duke has consistently failed to adhere to operating and administrative procedures This con-tention should be admitted as asserting inadequacies in Duke's technical qualifications to operate Catawba.
The contention is specific and a sufficient supporting factual basis has been provided.
Contention 8 By this contention Palmetto Alliance seeks to raise Duf e's compliance with Commission criteria concerning reactor operators and shift supervisors.
The NRC Staff does not oppose admission of this contention. As stated the contention is reasonably specific and states a basis warranting litigation of the issue.
Y Contention 9 By this proposed contention Palmetto' Alliance either asserts thd Applicants have not complied with 10 C.F.R. 650.44(c) design requirements O
With respect to this contention, see the proposed rule entitled,
" Interim Requirements Related to Hydrogen Control", 46 Fed. Reg.
f 62281(December 23,1981).-
.I
. or attempts to raise the " hydrogen control issue" permitted by the Commission in Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), CLI-80-16,11 NRC 674.(1980).
The Commission in THI-1 decided that hydrogen gas control (in excess of 10 C.F.R. 950.44 design bases) issres could be raised if there is a credible loss-of-coolant accident scenario. The basis given in the contention is that release consequences of much higher pressure than the Catawba containment design pressure of 15 psi (FSAR, 6.2-1) were experienced in the Three Mile Island-2 accident and are likely to occur at Catawba in the event of a range and variety of LOCAs.
First, the proposed contention fails to articulate any reasonably specific basis demonstrating that Applicants have failed to comply with the design basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.44. Bald assertions that hydrogen releases have occurred that are above 10 C.F.R. 650.44 design basis requirenents do not support a contention that 10 C.F.R. 950.44 design requirements have not been met here.
Three Mile Island 1, supra, 11 NRC at 674.
Second, Palmetto Alliance further fails to state an admissible contention to 'che extent that it attempts to raise the " hydrogen control issue" regarding actual ECCS operation, pennitted by the Commission in the TMI-1 restart hearing, 11 NRC 674, rather than a lack of compliance with 10 C.F.R. 550.44 ECCS design requirements.
In the TMI-1 decision at page 675, the Commission stated that "[u]nder Part 100,. hydrogen control measures beyond those required by 10 C.F.R. 50.44 would be required if it is determined that there is a credible loss-of-coolant-accident scenario entailing hydrogen generation, hydrogen combustion, containment breach or
' leaking, and offsite radiation doses in excess of Part 100 guideline values." Palmetto Alliance's contention does not present the type of scenario that, according to the Commission, is necessary to litigate the hydrogen control issue.E For.these reasons, Contention 9 is inadmissible as an issue in this operating license proceeding.
Contention 11 Palmetto Alliance's contention apparently seeks to reopen the construction permit cost-benefit balance based on cost increases over construction cost estimates. The contention may be seeking to apply the total construction costs in the cost-benefit balance at the operating license review stage.
In any event, this contention is beyond the scope of this operating license proceeding and irrelevant. At the operating license review stage, the cost-benefit analysis balances operating benefits against operating costs. The plant is already built-and the costs of construction incurred.
" Sunk costs," i.e., the cost of construction, are not relevant to the present action under the NEPA 20/ This contention also states that "[f]ailures in Quality Assurance undermine confidence in the quality of construction of the contain-ment and ice condenser systems so that no ' built in' conservatisms beyond the design basis should be relied upon to provide a margin of sa fety. " This stateent is neither relevant nor material to the proposed " hydrogen generation control" contention.. In any event, the statement lacks any reasonably specific basis in support of the assertion made.
It should, therefore, be rejected.
" rule of reason." U Contention 12 and 13 Palmetto Alliance's contention 12 states, in toto, that "the need for funds for a capital-intensive form of energy production has placed added burdens on a tight capital market and increased interest rates in the economy as a whole." Palmetto Alliance's contention is beyond the scope of this proceeding, and, therefore, should be rejected.
The contention does not specify any failure to comply with any Commission regulations or requirements and does not raise an issue that is cogni-zable by the Commission or litigable in this proceeding. Thic contention, in effect, is a broad challenge to nuclear power on policy grounds and is not susceptible to a reasonable degree of proof in this proceeding.
Palmetto Alliance's contention 13 is similarly infim.
No basis is specified concerning how Duke has failed to comply with Commission requirements for obtaining operating licenses for the Catawba facility.
21/ Prior adjudication concluded that construction of the reactor was justified despite the economic and environmental costs of construction.
Principles governing the finality of adjudication require respect for findings made during the construction permit adjudication.
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-2L, 14 NRC 175, 198 (1981) citing Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210 (1974) (collateral estoppel bars relitigating issues alread construction permit stage)y ventilated and resolved at the
.- Litigable concerns under either tne Atomic Energy Acte or NEPAEo d
not include whether utility ',estment in nuclear. facilities is economically justified.
See, e.g. Portland General Electric Company, et al. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263, 265-68 (1979).
' Contention 13 is -beyond the scope of this proceeding and should be rejected.
Contentions 14 and 16 By these contentions, Palmetto Alliance asserts that Duke has failed to properly analyze the environmental and health and safety aspects of transportation and storage of spent fuel at Catawba tre Duke's other reactors.
Summary Table S-4 is applicable in this proceeding pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 951.20(g)(1)(a)(1) to the environmental impacts of spent fuel transportation. To the extent Palmetto Alliance seeks to go litigate the impacts of spent fuel transportation outside Summary Table S-4, its contentions constitute an impennissible challenge to Commission requirements.
-Sources of information are available concerning environmental impacts of spent fuel storage. See eA, " Final Environmental Impact Statement on Handling ar.c 'torage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel,"
NUREG-0575, Vols. 1 & 2 (August 1979).
In the face of such information, Palmetto Alliance is not without information on which it could articulate
_2_2/ ' 42 U.S.C. 2231 et seg.
2 23/ National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
. a reasonably specific basis for a contention involving spent fuel storage, if it has specific concerns.
Palmetto Alliance's contention, however, lacks a sufficient specific basis concerning the environmental effects and environmental costs that are alleged to have been inadequately considered in the Catawba NEPA review. This contention should therefore be rejected.
Contenticn 16, concerning the health and safety aspects of spent fuel transportation and storage, suffers from similar infirmities, lhe contention fails to provide even a minimum basis reasonably specifying how Duke fails to meet Commission health and safety requirements for spent fuel transportation and storage.
Since this contention fails to state any basis pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.714 it too should be rejected.
Contention 15 This contention also concerns transportation of spent fuel from other Duke reactors for storage at Catawba.
This contention asserts that spent fuel transportation and storage at Catawba canpromises the construction permit cost-benefit balance, although it does not specify any particulars. The validity of the construction permit proceeding cost-benefit balance is beyond the scope of this proceeding.2d/
If Palmetto Alliance's contention is an assertion that the operating license cost-benefit balance, which involves t'sts and benefits of operation, will not support operating license issuance, the contention lacks a reasonably specific basis required by 10 C.F.R. 62.714.
There is 24/ See the NRC Staff's response above to Palmetts Alliance Contention 11.
. no specific explanation or basis that states how transportation and storage of other reactor spent fuel at Catawba tips the cost-benefit balance against operating license issuance.
This contention should be rejected for these reasons.
Contention 17 This contention asserts that Duke has not provided for safe storage of spent fuel for an indefinite tenn after expiration of the operating licensing.
This contention is beyond the scope of this proceeding and, therefore, should be rejected.
It would be contrary to express Commission policy set forth in the Commission's " waste confidence" rulemaking for the Licensing Board to entertain this contention in this operating license proceeding. 44 Fed.
_R_eg. 61372 (October 25,1979). The Appeal Board has held that e
contentions raising the health and safety aspects of spent fuel storage at a reactor site beyond license expiration are not litigable in individual proceedings pending the outcome of the completion of the
" waste confidence" rulemaking. According to the Appeal Board, this would constitute a collateral attack on the Commission's rulemaking.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company, et al. (Salem fiuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-80-10,11 f4RC 337, 338 (1980), affirmed Public Service Electric and Gas Company et al. (Salem fluclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-650,14 tiRC 43, 68-69 (1981).
See:
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (florth Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-584,11 f4RC 451, 465 (1980); 44 Fed. R_eg. 61372, 61373 (October 25,1979). However, the Catawba facility's operating
. license will be subject to whatever determinations are reached in the Commission'., rulemaking. 44 Fed. Reg. 61372, 61373 (October 25,1979)..
In addition, any storage of spent fuel at Catawba may only be for
- the tem of the Catawba operating license. Authorization for storage beyond that period must be specifically requested.
Since Applicants have not requested such extended storage authority, there is simply no basis for Petitioner's assertion that spent fuel storage for an indefinite term beyond the expiration of the OL need be provided for.
Contention 18 This contention asserts that Catawba's diesel generators are improperly designed and constructed.
Palmetto Alliance contends that the FSAR does not provide adequate assurance that regulatory requirements will 'be met in this regard.
This contention does not provide a basis with reasonable speci ficity.
The contention does not give adequate notice of the issues which the parties may have to defend against or oppose at the hearing.
Peach Bottom, supra, ALAB-216. Although the proposed contention asserts that Duke has installed used diesel generators at Catawba there is no factual assertion concerning how this factor constitutes non-compliance with Commission regu' *.fons.
Thus, even if Palmetto Alliance's -factual assertions are taken as true, there would be no basis for either denying the operating license or conditioning its issuance.
For these reasons, this proposed contention is inadmissible as it now stands.
Contention 19-This proposed contention asserts that the Catawba Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) "has not been demonstrated to meet the requirements m___._--____
of in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix K and 10 C.F.R. 950.46." The contention asserts two grounds.
First, models used to predict ECCS perfonnance have not been proven accurate.
Second, neutron shield bolting could loosen allowing the neutron shield to drop and block ECCS cooling during a loss of coolant accident (LOCA).
In the first instance, this contention should be rejected as vague. There is no specificity concerning which ECCS models Palmetto Alliance contests.
Nor is there an allegation that the Catawba ECCS model is either not approved by NRC or not in compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix K.
The allegation that models used to predict ECCS performance have not proven accurate does not support admission of Contention 19. The Commission has incorporated the required and acceptable features of the evaluation models into its regulations set forth in 10 C.F.R. 950.46,
" Acceptance -Criteria for Eraergency Core Cooling Systems for Light Water -
Nuclear Power Reactor.;," and 10 C.F.R. Appendix K, "ECCS Evaluation Models." Thus, to challenge the suitability of these models is to challenge the Commission's regulatory criteria.
ECCS criteria may not.be challenged in individual license proceeoings.
10 C.F.R. 92.758; Cf.
Union of Concerned Scientists v. Atomic Energy Commission, 499 F.2d 1069 (D.C. Cir.1974) affirming Boston Edison Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-83, 5 AEC 354, 359-60 (1972); Accord:
Long' Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) ALAB-156, 6 AEC 831, 834 (1973).
Palmetto Alliance does not otherwise allege any particu-larized factual basis stating how the Catawba facility does not comply with Commission ECCS requirements.
. Palmetto Alliance's allegation that neutron shield loosening experienced at other reactors could result in a LOCA and ECCS failure through cooling system blockage does not provide a reasonably specific basis for its contentions for several reasons. The contention provides no explanation concerning how loosening and loss of-neutron shield bolting that may have been experienced at other reactors may be relevant to the Catawba reactors. There is no allegation that neutron shield bolt loosening has been experienced for neutron shield designs similar to that at Catawba or in d Westinghouse designed reactor.
It does not identify which-reactors experienced neutron shield loosening nor whether it believes such a problem could occur at Catawba, although it does reference RESAR, Figure 4.2-7.
Moreover, there is no particularization of the neutron shield loosening problem that puts the parties on' notice of what they must defend against or oppose at the hearings. To be admissible, the contention must establish a nexus between the particular neutron shield bolt loosening problem that may have occurred at certain reactors and the licensing of the Catawba units. b For the above stated reasons, this Palmetto Alliance contention should be rejected.
Contention 20 Contention 20 concerns Duke's alleged failure to comply with the "as-low-as reasonably achievable" requirements of 10 C.F.R. s20.1. The basis for this assertion is that Westinghouse steam generators have E
Gulf Station Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 773 (1977).
. required repair and replacement at other reactors.
Furthennore, according to Palmetto Alliance, Duke has inadequately considered occu-pational radiation exposure from either the nonnal operation of Catawba or "that which may occur during an abnormal occurrence, severe ;ccident, or maintenance once thought unusual but now understood to be reasonably expectable."
This contention rests on the premise that similar steam-generator deterioration will occur during operation at Catawba. There is no factual basis for this premise other than a generalized, unsupported assertion that Catawba steam-generators will have to be repaired or replaced. To the extent that this contention rests on this unsupported premise, there is no nexus shown between steam-generator deterioration at other reactors and Catawba operation. Moreover, the contention fails to allege how any increased occupational exposure constitutes non-compliance with 10 C.F.R. 920.1, even if steam generator repair is assumed at Catawba. This contention fails even to specifically assert that Catawba steam generator repair would result in increases to occupational expo-sure at Catawba or that such increases, if they were to occur, would be significant.E E
Recently, the Appeal Board in Turkey Point, referred to by Palmetto Alliance, decided that "the environmental consequences of the steam generator repairs are sufficiently small that the justification for Turkey Point operation need not be reopened."
Florida Power and Light Company (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4),
ALAB-660, Slip op. (November 30,1981), at 31, 33.
.- Palmetto Alliance also argues that premature reactor vessel embrittlement and reactor neutron shield bolt loosening will result in increased occupational exposures.
Its argument is speculative, and, therefore, does not support aduission of this contention pursuant to the reasonably specific basis requirement of 10 C.F.R. 52.714(b).E Contention 21 Contention 21 asserts that Duke has not met NUREG-0737, I.C.1.
regarding new procedures and training requirements for mitigating small break LOCAs, inadequate core cooling incidents, and certain anticipated transients.E This contention is nothing more than a general unsupported statement that Duke has not complied with Commission requirements.
No basis of any sort is provided.
This contention should be rejected for failure to state a basis with reasonable specificity pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 92.714 requirements.
Contention 22 By this contention Palmetto Alliance seeks to raise overall control room design issues and issues concerning inadequate core cooling instru-2_7] Qur responses to Palmetto Alliance's proposed Contentions 19 and 44 address its proposed contentions concerning neutron shield bolt loosening and reactor (vessel) enbrittlement, respectively.
_2_8/ An intervenor may raise lack of compliance with Commission THI-2 8
requirements as set forth in NUREG-0737.
" Statement of Policy; Further Commission Guidance For Power Reactor Operating Licenses".
45 Fed. Reg. 85236(1980).
. menta tion.E Palmetto Alliance contends that human factors interaction analysis has not been conducted concerning the Catawba control room design and instrucentation. The contention does not provide a basis for the implied assertion that control room design is inadequate, or that the control room lacks sufficient instrumentation for detecting inadequate core cooling in case of abnormal events. The contention, therefore, fails to provide a basis with reasonable specificity. Moreover, the contention fails to give sufficient notice to the parties as to what they must defend against or oppose at the hearing.
For these reasons,-
Contention 22 should be rejected.
Contention 23 This proposed contention asserts little more than that Duke's Catawba security plan fails to meet Commission security plan require-ments.
Since the contention does no more than make the vague and unsupported allegation that the Catawba facility fails to meet Commission regulations, this contention is inadmissible for failure to state a basis with reasonable specificity.
-29/ Palmetto Alliance Contention 22 refers to NUREG-0660, NUREG-0694, and NUREG-0737 as Commission TMI-2 requirements. However, the Commission has determined that current operating license applica-tions should be measured against the regulations as augmented by the requirements found in NUREG-0737 (" Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements" (November 1980)).
NUREG-0694 was specifically superceded by NUREG-0737.
The items of the Action Plan (NUREG-0660) not included in the NUREG-0737 list of requirements applicable to operating license applications are to be addressed through the normal process for development and adoption of new requirements rather than through immediate imposition on pending applications.
" Statement of Policy; Further Commission Guidance for Power Reactor Operating Licenses," 45 Fed. Reg. 85236 (1980).
.- Contention 24 Palmetto Alliance contentica 24 concerns the Applicants' financial qualifications to safely operate and decommission the Catawba facility.E Palmetto Alliance argues that Applicants lack adequate financial resources for operating, maintaining and decommissioning the Catawba facility in confomity with flRC rules and regulations.
No factual support for Palmetto's argument is offered unless it is the reference to the Washington Public Power Supply experience. The proposed contention does not provide further enlightenment concerning how Washington Public Power Supply's reliance on municipalities and rural electrical cooperatives for financial support affects the Catawba Applicants' compliance with Commission financial qualifications requirements. This aspect of the contention, therefore, has no reasonab'y specified basis.
Palmetto Alliance' also asserts that a Three Mile Island type accident would cause certain Applicants to default. This assertion does not support admissibility of Contention 24 for several reasons.
Fi rst,
to the extent that it is premised on the occurrence of a Three Mile dccident at Catawba, the assertion is highly speculative. There is absolutely no proffered basis for assuming a Three Mile Island type accident could occur at Catawba.
Second, there is no reasonable articu-30/ Consideration of contentions concerning financial qualifications of utilities at.the operating license review stage is the subject of a current rulemaking proceeding.
" Financial Qualifications; Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," 46 Fed. Reg. 41786 (August 18,1981).
.- lation of a specific factual basis outlining how otherwise unidentified municipalities would default, if a Three Mile Island type accident were to occur.
The contention also constitutes an impermissible challenge to Commission financial qualification regulations 10 C.F.R. 550.33(f) and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix C contrary to 10 C.F.R. 92.758.
Commission financial qualification requirements do not require Applicants to demonstrate capability to absorb costs of highly speculative, catastrophic events.
Rather, Applicants for Catawba operating licenses are required to show that they possess or have reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover the estimated costs of operation for the period of the license or for 5 years, whichever is greater, plus the estimated costs of permanently shutting the facility dc.n and maintaining it in a safe condition.
10 C.F.R. 550.33(f); 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix C, Part B.
See also: Public Service Company of New HampshQe (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1, 22 (1978); Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al. (Pcrry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-24,14 NRC 175,192-197 (1981).
Clearly, the requirement to cover estimated operating costs does not include costs of remote and speculative events.
Cf.:
Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-77-68, 6 NRC 1127, 1163 (1977).
For the above reasons, the proposed contention fails to state a basis with reasonable specificity.
In addition, it seeks to raise matters beyond the scope of this proceeding and the Commission's regula-tions. This contention should be rejected.
--m.n
+--
_--_.-u,--,--,-----
.------.------.----u.-
. Contention 25 This contention is similar to Palmetto Alliance Contention 24.
It concerns Applicant's financial qualifications to safely decommission Catawba.
Like Contention 24 the final two paragraphs of Contention 25 are based on speculation.. They thus provide no factual basis with reasonable specificity. Accordingly, these two paragraphs are inadmissible for the reasons set forth in our answer to Palmetto Alliance Contention 24.
Although subject to certain refinement, the first two parag.aphs of Contention 25 generally state a contention with a reasonably specific basis.
The Staff does not oppose admission of those first two paragraphs as a contention.
Contention 26 Contention 26 apparently seeks to raise issues concerning the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control's monitoring and radiological emergency response capability.
This contention is inadmissible for several reasons.
First, the proposed contention is beyond the scope of this proceeding.
There is no Commission requirement that South Carolina have a monitoring program acceptable to the Commission as a prerequisite to Catawba licensing.
Second, the contention is so vague that it does not give the parties sufficient notice of the issues which they must defend against or oppose at the hearing.
It is unclear whether the contention is based on environmental effects monitoring, which usually concerns direct impacts on plant and animal life, or radiological monitoring, which usually concerns radiological releases relative to nearby population.
Third, the
.- contention fails to provide a basis with reatonable specificity.
There is no plausible authority or reasonable explanation concerning how South Carolina environmental effects nonitoring responsibilities involve fluclear Regulatory Commission requirements related to the Catawba facility's licensing, and specifically, why any requirements are not met.
Palmetto Alliance also argues that the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control cannot adequately perform its radio-logical emergency responsibilities due to funding cutbacks. Again, no basis is set forth with reasonable specificity.
The contention does not particularize the alleged funding cutbacks, nor does it specify what Commission radiological energency responsibilities the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control are to meet as pre-requisites to Catawba licensing.
For the above stated reasons, Palmetto Alliance Contention 26 should be rejected.
Contention 27 By this contention Palmetto Alliance seeks to require Applicants to place real time monitors capable of reading gamma radiation levels "around the site." According to Palmetto Alliance, these monitors would provide information for decisions by emergency operating personnel during a radiological release to the environment.
This contention is inadmissible and should be rejected.
If this contention means that such real time radiation monitors should be placed onsite, the contention does not provide a reasonably specific basis for an issue concerning whether Applicants have complied with Commission requirements. There is no identification of the
.- Commission criteria that would require such "onsite" real time monitors.
Similarly, if this contention means that real time monitors should be placed "offsite", there is no identification of the Commission require-ments for such placement.
In short, the contention is vague.
In addition, there is no particularization which puts Applicants on general notice of the issues on which it may bear the burden of proof at the hearing.
Contention 28 Proposed Contention 28, in part, states, "the applicants have failed to demonstrate that the risk from an ATWS event is sufficiently reduced by interim measures prior to resolution of generic issues and Commission direction on corrective action [does not] provides [ sic] reasonable assurance that the Catawba plant can be operated prior to that resolution without endangering the health and safety of the public."
This contention should be rejected.
As stated, it makes little sense and simply does not present a litigable issue.
In the first instance, the proposed contention constitutes a collateral challenge to the Commission's interim ATWS policy set forth -in the ATWS rulemaking.
" Standards for the Reduction of Risk From Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS) Events for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants," 46 Fed. Re3 57521 (November 24,1981). The Commission determined in 46 Fed. Reg. 57521 that there is reasonable-assurance of safety for continued operation until implementation of an ATWS rule is completed.
By this finding the Commission has directed that individual licensing board's are not to consider ATWS matters in individual proceedings. Thus to take up ATWS matters in individual proceeding contrary to the above described Commission ATWS policy would
.- constitute a collateral attack on the Commission's rulemaking.
See:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company, et al. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-650,14 NRC 43, 69 (1981).
If the proposed contention is an allegation that Applicants fail to meet interim ATWS guidelines, it does not allege a reasonably specific basis. There is no particularization concerning how Applicants fail to meet any required interim ATWS measures.
In addition, during the course of the construction permit proceeding, the ATWS issue was thoroughly litigated.
Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-34, 1 NRC 626, 638-642 (1975); affirmed Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-355, 4 NRC 397 (1976). CESG was the party raising the issue in the construction permit proceeding.
Catawba, supra,1 NRC at 641.
The ATWS issue was determined by a valid and final judgment, although CESG did not press the ATWS issue on appeal.
Catawba, supra,1 NRC at 642; Catawba, ALAB-355, supra, 4 NRC at 397, 405.
Finally, the Licensing Board's determination concerning ATWS was essential to the Catawba Licensing Board's decision which authorized issuance of construction permits.
Catawba,1 NRC at 642.
In pertinent part the Licensing Board stated:
53.
In summary, the Board finds:
(a) That while it is true that analyses of ATWS and Staff reviews are not yet canpleted, the plan of action required by Appendix A to WASH-1270, to which Applicant and Staff are committed, provides adequate assurance at the construction permit stage that analyses will be canpleted and satisfactory corrective action taken if indicated.
(b) ' That if the analyses indicate that the design modifications are required to limit the consequences of ATWS, straightforward engineering means are available
.- which could be incorporated within the proposed con-struction period and which would not appear to require extensive research and development to qualify them for service.
Palmetto Alliance's argument gives no particularized basis for its assertion that Applicants have not shown that the risk from c.. ATWS event is sufficiently reduced by interim measures pending Commission resolution of generic issues and Commission action.
Moreover, it makes no argument that there have been significant changed circumstances since the Catawba Initial Decision, which addressed ATWS.
It merely argues that the Commission's position is irrational based on the fact that ATWS is a recognized problem of sufficiently high risk that changes to address the risk ought to be made but that such changes can take place in the future.
Accordingly, for these reasons Contention 28 constitutes a collateral attack on the Licensing Board's previous consideration of ATWS issues.
For these reasons as well as the reason that Contention 28 fails to state a reasonably specific basis pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 92.714(b),
Contention 28 is inadmissible and should be rejected.
Contention 29 This contention asserts that Applicants have not accounted for certain potential impacts from systems interactions, and that Applicants do not understand "particularly the safety implications of control sy:tems and plant dynamics."
This proposed contention is unenlightening concerning what issues Palmetto Alliance seeks to raise, although it generally describes a subject matter area of concern.
It is, therefore, impermissibly vague and lacks a reasonably specific basis and should not be admitted.
. 2.
Palmetto Alliance - CESG Contentions Contention 30(CESGContentionIN By this proposed contention, petitioners Palmetto Alliance and CESG seek to litigate whether the power to be generated by the Catawba units is needed. They also seek to litigate the alternative of rescinding the CP and mothballing the plant until the cost / benefit balance for continuing construction becomes favorableE 3_1] Palnetto Alliance's Contentions 30-48 are virtually identical to 1
CESG's Contentions 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 11, 12-13, 15-22. The responses to the identical Palmetto Alliance and CESG contentions are provided here, with the identical CESG contention identified parenthetically.
Responses to those CESG contentions that are not identical to Palmetto Alliance contentions are given below.
32_/ The construction permit Licensing Board's discussion and findings on the need for power and alternative energy sources are set forth in its Initial Decision.
Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-34, 1 NRC 626, 663-66 (1975), affirmed Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-355, 4 NRC 397, 405-414 (1976).
As recently as January,1981, this agency confirmed that there has not beer, a major change in need for Catawba power and Duke system reserve requirements that shows that the cost / benefit balance originally struck is now invalid.
Duke Power Companl (Catawba Nuclear Station, Uni;3 1 and 2),
DD-81-1, 13 NRC 45, 48-51 (1981).
.- The "need for power"E ssue should be rejected.
As framed, the i
issue is not relevant to this operating license proceeding. Moreover, the contention is vague, and it lacks a basis stated with reasonable specificity.
As framed by petitioners the need for power issue is not relevant to issuance of operating licenses for the Catawba facility.
In an operating license proceeding, the original demand forecast is irrelevant since the precise timing of the need for a constructed facility is immaterial to the ultimate issue of whether to operate at such time as the plant is completed and available.E To the extent that the contention attempts to raise the economic issue of "mothballing" the Catawba facility until the time when the power is "needed" in the traditional sense, the cost efficiency of the Catawba facility is left to the business judgment of the Applicant and "to the wisdom of the State regulatory agencies responsible for scrutinizing the E The Commission has published a proposed rule which, if adopted, would exclude need for power and alternative energy source issues from operating license proceedings, absent a showing of special circumstances under 9 2.758.
46 Fed. Reg. 39440 (August 3, 1981).
The Commission stated that the rule, if adopted in final form, could be applied to then pending licensing proceedings and to issues or contentions raised therein. 46 Fed. Reg. 39441.
E Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-30, 12 NRC 683, 691 (1980).
/
r t
,q
/
f,
. purely economic aspects" of new-generating facilities.E In any event, even if the "need for power" forecast changed after issuance of the construction permit, the Catawba facility, nonetheless, may be justified as a " substitution" for older less efficient operating facilities.
C_f. Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 95-99 (1977).
affirmed Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1 (1978). Contention 30 (CESG Contention 1) should be rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Contention 31 (CESG Contention 2)
The contention appears to assert that hydrogen release consequences have not been dealt with. As such it duplicates contention 9.
For the reasons set forth in our response to Contention 9, this contention should be rejected as well.
It is not within the scope of the exception for a hydrogen generation control contention permitted by TMI-1, supra, CLI-80-16, 11 NRC 674.
In addition, this contention-is otherwise unintelligible.
If it is an assertion that Applicants have not met 10 C.F.R. 650.44 requirements, E Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-30, 12 NRC 683, 691-92 (1980) citing Consumers Power Company " Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-458, 7 NRC 155,163 (1978).
See also Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-573,10 NRC 755, 805 (1979).
'W
- y, o
3 O
c
.- it neither says so nor provides a basis for such assertion.
If it is an assertion that there is a credible accident sequence leading to violation of 10 C.F.R. Part 100 requirements, E it neither says so nor provides
. any basis for such assertion.
So interpreted, this contention rests on O;
an erroneous premise.
It assumes hydrogen will be released -- the
, mechanism for such releases is not stated.
The contention assumes consequences will result from assumed hydrogen releases -- how this will-u
% e_
' occur is not indicated.
One can speculate that Petitioners are prepared to establish the basis underpinning the assumptions, but these bases are N
c
~not provided by either reasonable explanation or plausible authority in
,s 3this contention.
Accordingly, this contention should be rejected because it fails to
' state a reasonably specific basis and the parties are not apprised by the N ;
.a
- ccrdention of the issues which they must defend against or oppose at a n
hea'ri ng.
w Content' ion 32 {'CE3G Contention 31 l2 This contention asserts that the Staff's risk evaluation is inade-(
~
u
~
quate.
No particulars v,e,given. Thus, this contention states that "the
" totality of risks", "the' ojierating risks, plus those associated v.
with...", and "these risks" have not been considered. There is
)
absolutely no explanation concerning what Petitioners mean concerning
i rirX evaluation.
For example, the statement that "these risks are
.S Q
~
+
f
( j1gnificcnt and greater by far than those assumed at the CP stage" does Q
L n
y E L tigation of such a contention is permitted, if it meets the J2' requirements of CLI-80-16, 11 NRC 674, 675.
.- - ly 3
g
.e
%. t.
. i
'N
,l m-( u%
lM
.1
.- not specify a reasonable basis for a contention.
Petitioners assertion that "the operating risk, plus those associated with decommissioning the transport, and both interim and long term storage of radioactive sub-stances resulting fran generation, must be taken into consideration in striking a cost / benefit balance vis-a-vis alternatives" is vague, provides no reasonably specific basis, and does not notify the parties concerning exactly what they must address at the hearing.
This conten-tion, therefore, fails to state a basis with reasonably specificity.
It-should be rejected.
Although it is not clear, the final sentence of contention 32 may be alleging that there will be inadequate waste storage after operating license expiration.
If so, admission of the contention would be contrary to Commission policy that pending the " waste-confidence" rulemaking outcome, individual licensing boards should not accept contentions involving. waste storage beyond reactor operation.
Salem, ALAB-650, supra,14 NRC 68-69 North Anna, ALAB-584, supra.11 NRC at 465.
Accordingly, the final sentence of this contention should be rejected for the reasons set forth in our response to Palmetto Alliance contention 17.
Contention 33 (CESG Contention 5)
By this contention petitioners assert that the CP cost-benefit balance is " grossly defective". This contention should be rejected.
.- The CP cost-benefit balance is'not relevant to operating license consideration.E Contention 34 (CESG Contention 6)
This contention, like Contention 33, also asserts that the CP cost-benefit balance is defective.
This contention is inadmissible and should be rejected since the CP cost-benefit balance is not relevant to this proceeding.
In addition, for the same reasons set forth in response to Palmetto Alliance Contention 33 (CESG Contention 5) and Palmetto Alliance Contention 30 (CESG Contention 1), it should be rejected.
The contention apparently attempts to tie its assertion to the economic burden on consumers from plant construction.
If this is a con-tention that seeks to raise the issue of direct economic impacts on consumers from the cost of construction, it is not within the scope of this operating license proceeding. The economic costs alluded to are not cognizable in Commission proceedings.
See:
Florida Power and Light Company (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Units Nos. 3 and 4),
ALAB-660, Slip op. (November 30,1981), at 26-28, 31, 32, fn. 28, 33 (and cases cited therein).
For these reasons this contention should be
^
rejected.
It also fails to allege a reasonable factual basis, and, is, therefore, inadmissible.
E It is also inadmissible for the same reasons set forth in our responses to Palmetto Alliance Contention 30 (CESG Contention 1).
That is, this contention is beyond the scope of this operating license proceeding.
. Contention 35 (CESG Contention 8)
This contention asserts that the energency planning zone should extend to at least 30 miles for planning purposes and include Charlotte, North Carolina located some 17 miles fran the facility. The expressed reasons are that the Catawba facility is a low pressure, ice condenser containment type facility and that the consequences of severe accidents are estimated to extend to at least 25 miles.j8/
This contention is inadmissible because it does not comply with the specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 62.714(b). There is no reasonably specific basis given for the bald assertion that an emergency planning zone of 30 miles is required because of the particular design of the Catawba facility. Similarly, no basis is given for the assertion that the consequences of severe accidents are estimated to extend to 25 miles and, therefore, a radius of 30 miles should be used for emergency planning purposes.
In arriving at its designation of a 10 mile EPZ, the Commission understood that serious accidents of a wide range were conceivable.
It nonetheless, determined that its rules provided an adequate level of emergency preparedness given due consideration to all
]8/ This contention essentially duplicates Palmetto Alliance Contentions 3 and 4.
For the reasons set forth in our response to those contentions, it is inadmissible as an impermissible attack on Commission regulations and should be rejected for the reasons set forth in answers to Palmetto Alliance Contention 3 and 4.
.m.
.m
~
. pertinent factors. /
This contention is also inadmissible because it constitutes an attack on the Commission's regulations contrary to 10 C.F.R. 52.758.
The Commission's emergency planning regulations provide that a 10-mile plume exposure pathway and a 50-mile ingestion pathway EPZ are adequate as a planning basis for emergency response. E Petitioners Contention 35 (CESG Contention 8) would have this Licensing Board go behind the Commission's rule of a 10-mile plume EPZ and 50-mile ingestion EPZ and weigh de novo the factors which were considered by the Commission's E Further evidence that the "about 10 miles" and "about 50 miles" distances were to be followed in defining EPZ's for nuclear facilities such as Catawba is the fact that the rule itself on EPZ's sets forth two, and only two, circumstances where the size of the EPZ's may be determined on a case-by-case basis, namely, gas-cooled reactors and reactors with an authorized power level less than 250 MW thermal.
10 C.F.R. 550.47(c)(2); 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E.
Thus the Commission specifically considered the circumstances under which the size of the EPZ should be determined on a case-by-case basis and concluded that only the two identified types of reactors warranted departure from the general rule of "about 10 miles" for plume exposure EPZ's and "about 50 miles" for ingestion pathway EPZ's. Giving due regard to the rulemaking process which resulted in the current emergency planning rule of "about 10 mile" plume exposure pathway EPZ's and "about 50 mile" ingestion pathway EPZ's, the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn concerning EPZ's is that except for these two exceptions contained in the regulations, the size of the EPZ's are fixed in individual cases except for relatively small adjustments based on such local conditions as " demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes and jurisdictional boundaries."
10 C.F.R. 950.47(c)(2); 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, n. 2.
O
" Policy Statement on the Planning Basis for Emergency Responses to fluclear Power Reactor Accidents" 44 Fed. Reg. 61123 (1979).
~
i h
f
$ judgement in determining generically the appropriate size of EPZ's, including site specific consequences of various accident sequences.O Contention 36 (CESG Contention 9)
By this proposed contention Petitioners may seek to litigate conse-quences for the entire spectrum of serious release accidents-including PWR-1 to PWR-9 as fonnulated in the reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400).
If so, since this contention essentially duplicates Palmetto Alliance Contentions 2 and 5, it should be rejected for the reasons set forth in our answers to Palmetto Alliance Contention 2 and 5.
The EIS will contain the appropriate analysis required by the Commission's Statement of Interim Policy 4S concerning serious accidents.
Contention 37 (CESG Contention 10)
This Contention asserts that a crises relocation plan should be provided as a condition of the Catawba operating license based on the nature of particulate releases from serious accidents, such as PWR-1.
This contention is vague since this contention is nothing more than a generalization regarding petitioners view of what applicable policies E " Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969," Statement of Interim Policy,"
45 Fed. Reg. 40101 (August 13,1980).
O See: Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Tihiironmental Policy Act of 1969, 45 Fed. Reg. 40101(1980).
. ought to be.b It should be rejected for this reason as well as for lack of a reasonably specific basis, since there is no basis given supporting the assertion that a crises relocation plan would meet Commission requirements concerning required emergency protective actions.
Contention 38(CESGContention11)N This contention asserts that the Catawba spent fuel pool was improperly expanded.
It alleges that the construction pemit did not pemit spent fuel pool expansion.
It also alleges that the construction pemit was improperly amended to parait spent fuel pool expansion.
There is no legal basis for a contention in this operating license proceeding regarding the Catawba spent fuel pool expansion since it constitutes a collateral attack on the now final construction pemit proceeding.
Beyond this, Contention 38 is not admissible even taking the stated allegations to be true. There is no statement of an issue that would put the parties on specific notice about what Petitioners' concern is with respect to significant " increases in the sources term for fuel pool accidents, including boiling dry followed by fuel melt " or the basis for E
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974).
Palmetto Alliance Contention 38 is identical to CESG Contention 11 except for the following sentence which is contained in CESG Contention 11: "The Intervenor CESG, was not, at the time, apprised of this change." What " time" CESG alludes to is not clear.
. assuming that such accidents could occur.
The contention is impermissibly vague and lacks a reasonably specific basis even if it is determined that there is a legal basis for consideration of the subject matter in this operating license proceeding.
Contention 39 (CESG Contention 12)
This contention apparently asserts that the operating license should not issue because the construction permit cost-benefit balance has changed. This is said to be due to Applicants' programs designed to decrease load growth, special "conserver" rates, and homeowner assistance to reduce thermal loss.
The erroneous logic asserted is that the CP cost-benefit must have changed since the described energy programs were instituted after the Catawba construction penait cost-benefit balance was struck.
This contention should be rejected because the construction permit cost-benefit balance is not relevant to matters to be considered in this operating license proceeding.SSI It is, therefore, beyond the scope of this proceeding.
This contention should be also rejected for lack of specificity and t-reasonably supported basis.
It does not even expressly allege that the cost-benefit balance has changed, much less allege any factual support concerning the effect of the described energy conservation programs on the cost-benefit balance. There is thus no logical nexus asserted between the effect of the described energy conservation programs on the 4'2I' See, in this regard, our response to Palmetto Alliance Contention 30, (CESG Contention 1).
l
. t CP cost-benefit balance and th'e assertion that the operating license should not issue.
To give Applicants even a hint as to the issues on which it may bear the burden of proof at a hearing, the. contention would have to allege that the described energy conservation programs have tipped the operating cost-benefit balance against Catawba operation.
Even this bare assertion would.m'. support a contention, however, unless a reasonably specific factual basis describing the effects of the listed energy conservation programs are alleged.
Contention 40 (CESG Contention 13)
The naked assertion that "the license should not issue because irregularities in the welding practices on safety related systems endanger the public health and safety," does not state a basis with reasonable specificity. The alleged " irregularities" are not identified and the basis for the assertion that such " irregularities" occurred or could have safety significance are not stated.
This contention should, therefore, be rejected for failure to comply with the bases and speci-ficity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714(b).
Contention 41 (CESG Contention 15)
Petitioners seek to litigate the effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP). This contention is devoid of specificity concerning how this phenomenon could occur, the likelihood of its occurence at Catawba, how such 84P would be generated at Catawba, or what the Commission requires concerning EMP effects at Catawba.
For this reason, this contention is inadmissible for lack of a basis stated with reasonable specificity.
If the contention is based on an unspecified assumption that the EMP will be generated by a high altitude nuclear explosion, the conten-
. tion constitutes an_ impennissible attack on 10 C.F.R. 650.13 contrary to provisions of 10 C.F.R. 52.758.5 Section 50.13 provides that:
An Applicant for a license to construct and operate a production or utilization facility or for an amendment to such license, is not required to provide for design features or other measures for the specific purpose of protection against the effects of (a) attacks and destructive acts, including sabo age, directed against the facility by an enemy of the United States, whether a foreign government or other person, or (b) use or deployment of weapons incident to U.S. defense activities.
For this reason and because the contention lacks a reasonably specific basis, it should be rejected.
Contention 42 (CESG Contention 16)
This contention merely asserts that the operating license preceded human factors considerations in control room design.
N See Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-440, 441, " Memorandum and Order Concerning Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy's Motion for Leave to File a Contention About Electromagnetic Pulses..." (October 2, 1981). The licensing board rejected a similar EMP contention as an impermissible attack on 650.13. The contention generally alleged that EMP could occur from use or deployment of weapons incident to U.S. defense activities. That board subsequently raised by memo-randum to the Commission its concern that the problem of EMP may be a serious, but managerble, problem for power reactors. Memorandum to the Commission Concerning Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy's Motion for Leave to File a Contention about Electromagnetic Pulses (October 7,1981). The board stated in its memorandum, however, that it believed its ruling was correct and that it was not refer-ring its ruling to the Commission.
In response to the memorandum, Commission Ahearne transmitted to the board SECY-81-641, " Electro-magnetic Pulse (EMP)--Effects on Nuclear Power Plants," a status report on the effects of EMP on nuclear power plants.
. This contention raises essentially the same issue raised in Palmetto Alliance Contention 22.
It is, therefore, inadaissible for the reasons set forth in our answer to Palmetto Alliance Contention 22, supra.
Moreover, this contention states factors that are either vague or
' irrelevant to the operating license proceeding. The mere fact that Catawba's control room design preceded consideration of human factors
-considerations in control room design has no bearing on issues in this proceeding.
In effect, the contention alleges no failure of compliance with present NRC regulations or requirements governing operating license applications and, quite simply, does not raise any litigable issue.
Accordingly, this contention should be rejected, since there is no express issue raised concerning Catawba's compliance with applicable, current control room design requirements supported by a reasonably specific basis.
Contention 43 (CESG Contention 17)
In this contention, petitioners assert that "the license should not issue because no consideration has been given to the effects of Corbicula, known to infest the Catawba River and Lake Wylie, on the performance of the cooling tower system."
This contention does not state an issue with reasonably specific basis pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.714 requirements. There is no definition of what "corbicula" is, why it is known to infest the Catawba River and Lake Wylie", or how "corbicula" could affect cooling tower systen performance The Staff, therefore, objects to the admission of this contention.
. Contention 44 (CESG Contention 18)
This proposed contention asserts that reactor degradation has occurred at a number of PWR's including Duke's Oconee Unit 1 because of some unidentified ra,nid increase in reference temperature. This is said to cause reactor embrittlement.
This contention is inadmissible because it is vague and lacks basis stated with reasonable specificity. There is no specificity concerning how a rapid increase in temperature can cause reactor enbrittlement.
Nor is there a reasonable basis given supporting the implicit assertion that
" reactor embrittlement" could occur at Catawba.
For these reasons, this contention should be rejected.
In addition, therc is no showing of special circumstances that would pennit litigation of this issue under the rule of Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indiand Point Unit No.
2), CLI-72-29, 5 AEC 20 (1972) and Wisconsin Eleccric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-137, 6 AEC 491 (1973).
Contention 45 (CESG Contention 19)
By this contention Petitioners assert that reactor neutron shield loosening could result in loss of ECCS during a LOCA.
This contention is almost identical to the third paragraph of Palmetto Alliance Con-tention 19.
It is, therefore, inadmissible for the reasons set forth in our answer to the third paragraph of proposed Palmetto Alliance Contention 19.
Contention 46 (CESG Contention 20)
This proposed contention asserts that substantial radioactivity releases to Lake Wylie could occur in an accident "such as happened at Oconee". However, there is no particularization of how this could occur
. at Catawba except for the reference to a similar Oconee incident.
Accordingly, this aspect of the contention should be rejected for failure to state a basis with reasonable specificity.
Similarly, the allegation that substantial radioactivity releases to Lake Wylie could occur "from any one of a variety of as yet unencountered operational errors" is highly speculative and, therefore, does not put
-parties on notice of issues on which they may bear the burden of proof at the hearing.
This part of the contention is inadmissible and should be rejected since it does not allege a basis with reasonable specificity.
Contention 47 (CESG Contention 21)
By this contention Petitioners assert that Applicants' environmental report (ER0L) is deficient. They contend that the ER0L does not (1) consider tritium health effects, (2) water pathways as a source of radioactive dosage, and (3) radioactive particulate release consequences.
Deficiencies in the ER0L are irrelevant to the Commission's responsibility to consider environmental impacts pursuant to the National Environnental Policy Act of 1969.
This contention should be rejected for failure to comply with-10 C.F.R. Q 2.714 specificity requirements. The contention is unenlightening concerning the allegation that dosage from water pathways is ignored and that radioactive particulate release consequences are not considered.
It is not clear from these latter arguments what Petitioners are concerned about. There is absolutely no allegation explaining how water pathway dosage or radioactive particulate releases could occur resulting in a requirement that Applicants consider the alleged effects.
. In addition, this contention appears to cover the same ground covered by Pabetto Alliance Contention 1 and 2.
It is, therefore, inadmissible for the same reasons set forth in our answers to those contentions.
l For the above reasons, this contention should be rejected for failure to state a basis with reasonable particularity pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b).
Contention 48 (CESG Contention 22)
By this proposed contention, petitioners assert that the Catawba owners face problems concerning responsibility and liability because of their joint ownership.
This contention is vague.
The contention is unenlightening con-cerning what liability or what responsibility the owners will fail to meet. There is no delineation of the relationship of these unspecified concerns to operation of the Catawba facility.
It should, therefore, be rejected for failure to meet the reasonably specific basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. 92.714.
In summary, Palmetto Alliance has met 62.713(b) representation and E
$2.714 standing requirements and has stated at least one contention pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 92.714(b). Accordingly, the Staff does not oppose Palmetto Alliance's request for a hearing and admission as a party to the proceeding.
E "flRC Staff Response to Petition to Intervene and Request For Hearing of Palmetto Alliance," ( August 11, 1981), p. 10.
. 3.
Carolina Environmental Study Group (CESG).
.The Staff's response to Palmetto Alliance and CESG duplicate conten-tions is given above.
CESG contentions 4, 7, and -14 were not addressed.
For the most part these CESG contentions are mere generalized statements shich are readily identified as not being issues suitable for adaission as a contentions in these proceedings pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(b).
CESG Contention 4 assarts that Applicant and Staff motions to bar CESG's admission as an intervenor based on collateral' estoppel and res judicata should be denied. This is simply not a contention within the meaning of 10 C.F.R. b 2,714 and should be disregarded.
CESG Contentions 7 and 14 request the Licensing Board to schedule "the prehearing conference" 90 days after issuance of the Staff's environmental impact statement and safety evaluation report.
It is not clear whether the prehearing conference referrcd to is the special prehearing conference required by 10 C.F.R. 62.751a or the 10 C.F.R. 92.752 prehearing conference.
In any event, Contentions 7 and 14 are scheduling requests, not contentions within the meaning of 10 C.F.R. 52.714(b).
If Contentions 7 and 14 are meant to be motions, the NRC Staff opposes these requests on several grounds.
Granting such requests would be contrary to Commission regulations specifying procedures to be followed in operating license proceedings. The regulations contemplate that in the nomal course the Q2.751a special prehearing conference be held within 90 days of the notice of opportunity for hearing. As a matter of practice, this is long before Staff environmental and safety
p-1 reports may be published. This prehearing conference procedure l' contemplated by the Commission rules.
Although the Licensing Board may have some discretion.to change the date when the 10 C.F.R. 5 2.751a prehearing conference may be held after the notice of hearing is issued, it hasino authority to defer the. 92.751a conference until after Staff documents are published in order to allow a potential intervenor to formulate contentions.
CESG has given no reasonable basis for the Licensing Board to exercise that Licensing -
4 Board's discretion in the manner suggested by CESG in this proceeding.
In fact, CESG gives no basis for demonstrating why'it is " essential" to j
permit CESG to wait until Staff' documents are published in order for it-i to formulate contentions. There is ample documentation existing now in the form of the ER0L and FSAR on which CESG can formulate contentions i.
concerning environmental and health and safety matters.
' Finally, the requests set forth in CESG Contentions 7 and 14 are moot..CESG and other potential intervenors have filed their proposed contentions and the Licensing Board has scheduled the 10 C.F.R. 92.751a i
prehearing conference.
In summary, CESG has complied with the 10 C.F.R. 92.713(b)~
representation requirements and with the 10 C.F.R. 92.714(a) standing requirements.S2/ However, CESG has not stated at least one litigable contention meeting 10 C.F.R. 92.714(b) requirements. Accordingly, the i
k i
4 47/ "NRC Staff Response To' Petitions To Intervene Submitted By Charlotte-Mechlenburg Environmental Coalition, Carolina Environ-mental Study _ Group, and Safe Energy Alliance," (August 18,'1981),
- p. 12.
. Staff opposes CESG's admission as a party to the proceeding.
4.
< Charlotte-Mechlenburg Environmental Coalition ("CMEC") Contentions CMEC Contention 1 By this proposed contention CMEC asserts that Applicants' have underestimated radioactive emissions during normal facility operation.
This contention does not provide a reasonably specific basis supporting its concerns, and there is no allegation that the cost-benefit balance for Catawba operation will be affected.
Such an allegation, including specifically how the cost-benefit balance would be affected, would be required to raise a litigable issue in this proceeding. The NRC Staff, therefore, does not oppose its admission as a contention in these proceedings.
CMEC Contention 2 This contention asserts that radioactive emission projections for normal operation fail to account for actual accidental radionuclide releases at other operating nuclear power plants. This contention is inadmissible, since it does not provide a basis with reasonable speci-ficity. The proposed contention does not particularize the " accidental releases" CMEC is concerned about. Nor does it identify the operating plants at which the " accidental releases" occurred.
In fact, the con-tention is based on nothing more than speculation about releases from other plants and, from that standpoint, is impossible to address in litigation. The contention does not provide a nexus between actual accidental releases at other operating nuclear plants and the likelihood of such occurrence at Catawba.
Moreover, the contention is internally inconsistent. -It argues that normal operating radioactive admission projections fail to account for accidental releases.
Because of these deficiencies, the parties are not put on general notice of factual issues about which they may have the burden of proof at the hearing.
For these reasons, this contention should be rejected.
CMEC Contention 3 By this proposed contention CHEC asserts that Applicants have underestimated radionuclide concentration in the Catawba River from normal. operation. _ Since CMEC Contention 3 refers both to normal oper-ation and to CMEC Contention 2 as part of its basis, the contention's specification is confusing.
It is not clear whethcr CMEC seeks to litigate Catawba River radionuclide concentrations due to normal operation or due to accidents-during operation.
Accordingly, the NRC Staff opposes admission of CMEC Contention 3 to the extent it seeks to litigate Catawba River radionuclide concentration projections resulting from normal operation. This contention does not set forth any reasonably specific basis sufficiently alleging the likelihood of normal or accidental radionuclide releases at Catawba that will affect projected Catawba River radionuclide concentrations.
Moreover, the contention fails to allege that the cost-benefit balance for Catawba will be affected.
For this reason, this contention does not specify an issue oursuant to 10 C.F.R. 92.714.
CMEC Contention 4 Petitioner CMEC asserts that Applicants have inadequately addressed long-term genetic and somatic health effects from normal and accidental
. radioactive releases from Catawba.
It alleges that Applicants have failed to consider certain studies. These unidentified studies are said to show long-term genetic and somatic health effects damaging to adults and hazardous to the human embyro and fetuses.
This contention should be rejected for failure to comply with 10 C.F.R. 62.714 specificity and basis requirements. The studies or authors are not identified.
Objective facts supporting claimed health effects fron normal releases and accidental radionuclide releases are not set out. There is no description concerning the likelihood of the alleged accidental releases.
CMEC Contention 4 references Contention 2 in. support of its allegations concerning accidental releases.
- However, as we said in our Contention 2 response, there is no nexus shown between unidentified actual accidental radionuclide releases at other operating plants and Catawba.
For the same reasons set forth in our response to CMEC Contention 2, CMEC's reference to CMEC Contention 2 lacks a reasonably specific basis to the extent it alleges detrimental health effects from accidental radionuclide releases from Catawba.
For the above stated reasons CMEC Contention 4 should be rejected for failing to comply with 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b) requirement. that contentions must allege a basis with reasonable specificity.
The Staff does not oppose CMEC's admission as a party to the proceeding based on the standing requirements of 10 C.F.R.
u
. 52.714.E However, CMEC has not stated at least one litigable contention pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.714.
Moreover, as we pointed out in our response to CMEC's petition to intervene, CMEC has not cured the defects in its petition concerning Mr. Presler's representative status pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.713(b).
CMEC's December 9,1981, contentions statement does not indicate that Mr. Presler has been authorized to participate in the Catawba licensing proceeding as a reprasentative of CMEC and its members who have an interest in the proceeding.E For these reasons CMEC's hearing request should not be granted and CMEC should not be admitted as a party.
CONCLUSION For the above reasons, Palmetto Alliance's hearing request should be granted since it has standing and has stated at least one litigable contention pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.714.
CESG's and CMEC's respective E "NRC Staff Response To Petitions To Intervene Submitted By Charlotte-Mechlenburg Environmental Coalition, Carolina Environ-mental Study Group, And Safe Energy Alliance," dated August 18, 1981, p. 9.
$ CMEC has satisfied the Allens Creek (ALAB-535, supra) requirement that an organization must provide concrete evidence that at least one member of the organization who possesses the requisite interest wishes to have that interest represented in the proceeding.
Mr. Presler, Chainnan of CMEC, executed an affidavit, a copy of which is attached to the CMEC Petition, affirming the contents of the Petition and stating that he resides in Charlotte, North Carolina.
In addition, members of 'several groups who belong to CMEC executed affidavits stating that CMEC did represent thcm in the Catawba proceedings.
r -
a
.mm-- - -
- u
hearing requests should be dent'ed. They have not stated at least one litigable contention pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 92.714. Safe Energy. Alliance should not.be admitted as a party.
Respectfully submitted,
'~
tM s
W Edward G. Ketchen Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 30th day of December,1981
---,-s,
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE AT0lIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD j
In the Matter of 1
UUKE POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-413 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 11 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL
- STATEMENTS OF CONTENTIONS BY PETITIONERS TO INTERVENE" and "NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED AGENDA FOR THE PREHEARING CONFERENCE" 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, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 30th day of December, 1981:
James L. Kelley, Chairman Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Debevoise 'and Liberman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1200 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20036 Dr. Dixon Callihan Robert Guild, Esq.
Union Carbide Corporation Attorney for the Palmetto Alliance P.O. Box 7 314 Pall Mall Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Dr. Richard F. Foster Palmetto Alliance P.O. Box 4263 2135h Devine Street Sunriver, Oregon 97701 Columbia, South Carolina 29205 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
- Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regualtory Commission 2600 Bull Street Washington, D. C.
20555 Columbia, South Carolina 29201
- Docket and Service Section Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regualtory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 1
A J
t e
we w.
,n-,_.
n,g
,,,,,_,_p,
. Donald R. Belk Safe Eneroy Alliance 2213 East Seventh Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28204 Henry Presler, Chairman Charlotte-Mecklenburg Environmental Coalition 942 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Jesse L. Riley Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 William L. Porter Esq.
Albert V. Carr, Esq.
Ellen T. Ruff, Esq.
Duke Power Company P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, NC 28242 Y
A s
Edward G. Ketchen Counsel for NRC Staff
--