ML20040F874
| ML20040F874 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1982 |
| From: | Finamore B, Greenberg E National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, TUTTLE & TAYLOR |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202100411 | |
| Download: ML20040F874 (21) | |
Text
.
4
\\
Before the M.' x E E -
'~~
UNITED STITES' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOM'.C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Washington, D.C.
20555
,82 EB -8 PS:13 In the Matter of
)
g,7e gca
)
D02ii!N3& SE3
)
EEMUI UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
)
PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
Docket No. 50-537
)
(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant)
)
PREHbARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT OF INTERVENORS NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. AND THE SIERRA CLUB Intervenors, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and I
~
the Sierra Club ("Intervenors"), submit this statement.in, order,to* _
~
present their views with respect to the schedule to govern further activities in this proceeding.
!'We' take as a point of reference the timetable which Applicants:have suggested to the Board.
s
-1/
The only change i6 status which Intervenors have to report is that East Tennessee Energ Group, previously represented by counsel to Interyenors, is no longer in existence.
By separate notice, dated Febru&ry'8, 1982, we are formally requesting that its intervention ~ be withdrawn.
As to _ pe'nding matters, while there were, as of April 25, 1977, several outstanping. mo.tions, sets of' interrogatories and objections to 'interrogitories, these 'related for the most part to the environmental record as it then.' was and will be moot to the extent such record will now.'be refispd.
Outstanding interrogatories which are, still ~ relevant can be answered in the process of updating all discovery responses.
-2/
We, like Applicants, limit ourselves in these comments to the phase of these proceedings leading up to t WA; ~E([
c E
hearing since that is what immediate,1y confronts us.
. y\\
8 h/
.,IO
-j
{$0, J % g'.9 70,2 a
$0
}
La t.L 5
NO A
%,.a s.
F202100411 820208 A
t;,,..Q%#
PDR ADOCK 05000537 G
PDR 9
G
.+
'O O
_2_
Conceptually Intervenors have no objection to a three cycle approach to progressing to an LWA hearing.
Indeed, it is 1
appropriate, in our view, to provide opportunity for revision of contentions, update of discovery, and completion of the prehearing l
process following release of "mijestone" documents.
Nonetheless, as explained below, we disagree with some of the~ details of Applicants' proposed schedule, particularly as regards timing.
(1)
Phase One - Revision of Contentions - The proposed schedule for review of amended. contentions, once the contentions are filed, is generally satisfactory to us. 2[ However, for several reasons, we believe that a three week period following the prehearing conference for presentation of new-(or _ amend'e'd)
~~ ~~
~
-. contentions is too short:
(.a )
A final env' iron' mental -impact statement. on the liquid metal fast breeder reactor ("LMFBR") pr,ogram should be
' released before revision of con' entions. A7 This is t
particularly so because, {as the Co[mmission's order of August 16, 1976, emphasized,theultimate[shapeoftheDepartment of Energy's
[
5/
We.h. ave one important concern about this schedule.
Whether or n'ot certain.-sevised. contentions are valid, and whether I
or not object' ions to-!them' should -be upheld, may depend upon the
~
scope and content of a revised projlect impact statement.
- Indeed, in the 1975-1977-prehearing, phase *,; rulings on environmental contentions only followed issuance of the staff's draft statement.
c Depending upon the objections which,may be raised.to revised contentions, a similar approach may be necessary now and thus rulings may have to be deferred,until the draf t statement is released.
A!
While we recognize that the' Board has previously ruled that the licensing dan legally proceed without the final programmatic statement, we continue 'to believe that the sounder approach under NEPA is for the entire licensing to await release of such statement.
s.
LMPBR programmatic statement will profoundly influence the licensing process.
Not only is the likelihood that the CRBR project as proposed will meet its objectives within 'he LMFBR program a relevant issue in the licensing, but so too are the prospects for alternatives to me'e,t t, hose objectives, which must be evaluated "in terras of the objectives defined in the
[ Department's] impact statement."
See 4' NRC at 92.
In fact, the Department of Energy has already released an updated draf t.
See U.S. Department of Energy, Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Liquid Metal Fast Breederl eactor Program (DOE /EIS-0085-D, R
December, 1981).
The comment period on the draft closes February
~,
8, and one can readily expect that the final will be reieased.in-
, the very near future.
Thus, awaiting the updated LMFBR program statement will n.ot materially dslay the prehearing phase, but it will give Intervenors an appropriate opportunity. to respond in
'their revised contentions to the Clinch River Breeder Reactor
("CRBR") project in the context of'the program as a whole.'E!
cu 23 (b)
There h, ave been significant changes in the CRBR projec,t since suspension of these proceedings, as reflected
- x s c,
^
in extensive hmendments t'o th.e Preliminary Safety Analysis Report s
z.
-5/
Interveno'rs would'blso note that the discovery process is, to some extent, dependebt' upon the timing of the LMFBR programmatic statement.
Intervenors are not able to take discovery aimed at determining whether the CRBR project, or reasonable alternatives, meet the objectives of the Department of Energy (see Contention 10) until they k,now what those objectives are.
m
(the "PSAR") and to the Environmental Report (the "ER"). b!
As a result, even if filing of new or amended contentions does not await release of the final programmatic LMFBR statement update, we believe that a' limited amount of more time to develop revisions is 5!
Specific changes in the CRBR project, as reflected in the PSAR and the ER, as revised, include the~following:
(1)
Significant changes in the reactor vessel and core design which must be reflected in accident modeling (PSAR Section 4.1 and 4.2).
(2)
Extensive changes in the requirements for further technical information (PSAR Section 1.5, Amendments 41, 42, 52, 53 and 59).
(3)
Shif t to a heterogeneous core design (PSAR Section 15.1).
(4)
Changes in accident modeling and associ'ated 1_
computer codes (PSAR Section 12, Appendix A).-
(5)
Changes in the design and description of the main steam supply system, the turbine. generator, the auxiliary liquid metal system, the reactor vessel internals, the containment vessel instrumentation'and monitoring system, the~FS quality assu'ance r
program, and the test objectives of firs ~t-of-a-kind design features. (PSAR Sections 4.22, 7.5-7.9, 9.31., 49.22, 10.3.2, J4'.1.4, Appendix 17B).
(6) *New data regarding site demography, hydrolo'gy, meteorology, ecology, geology, archae' ology, and socioeconomic characteristics (ER Section 2)..
(7)
Chang'es in proposed siti construction, plant layout, radioactive and sanitary waste sys'tems, water requirements, power transmissiop and heat dissipation systems (ER Sections 3.and 5).
Changes in 'ooling system design and waste (8),
c treatment de, sign, unused monitoring program and fuel requirements, new state ands federal'r~e'gulations such as water quality criteria, new decommissi~ning' f$formati'on g' design, and schedule, new o
fisheries data ~(ER Section 5). ',-
(9)
New radioactiye dose. calculations (ER Section 7).
f.
In addition, there have been important changes in our understanding of more general but relevant issues, such as reactor safety and siting, accident risks, waste management options, safeguard threats and nuclear economics.
See generally Intervenors' letter of August 21, 1981.,'.to the Secretary of Energy, requesting a revised LMFBR programmatic statement.
warranted.
The parties in this proceeding were originally given 30 days to respond to the filing of the license application.
We think a similar thirty day period would be appropriate at this point for submitting revised contentions.
In sum, we believe revised contentions should be filed within 21 days af ter release of the revised LMFBR programmati~c statement.
Alternatively, they should be permitted to be filed 3
within 30 days of the prehearing conference.
(2)
Phase Two - Discovery - Intervenors believe that the eight week discovery cycle proposed by Applicants is
~
unnecessarily and unreasonably'short:
(a)
As a practical matter, what will drive this
~
~
proceeding is the rate of preparat'io'n of " milestone" documents, s
particularly the revised Final Enviro'nmental Statement (the "FES")
./
and the revised Site Suitability. Report (the'"SSR"), both s
originally issued in 1977; as well.asla Safety Evaluation Report (the "SER").
Without pres [uming/to' speak for the staff, we u
s the sta'f f b5$ ag least preliminarily advised the understand that Commission of its schedule for dompleting the revisions of the FES and SSR.
See\\Memorandbni,. dated November 4, 1981, from T.A.
Rehm
.~.a, to the Commissioners, entitled "Wegkly Information Report -- Week
~
~.
Ending October 30y.1981." s-.The projec'ted completion dates for the FES and SSR revisions were. "9/17/82".and "6/1/82", respectively.
The first of these dates already appears to have slipped several months because preparation..of the dr'dft is now not likely to be
complete until June.
If indeed the revised FES will not be out until December, 1982, it is completely arbitrary to cut-off discovery after eight weeks.
In fact, under this Board's order of October 9, 1975, discovery in the 1975-1977 prehearing phase was allowed to proceed until complet' ion of the FES, and we see no need for varying this procedure in the resumed prehearing phase (b)
As proposed _by Applicants, the schedule would provide for serving updated answers to prior interrogatories and requests for admission on day one of the discovery cycle.
Because discovery during the prehearing phase of this proceeding between 1975 and 1977 was massive -- more than 2400 interrogatories and, 490 requests for admissions were served -- there is a real'
" ~~
~
potential for Intervenors.either being deluged with new information or di-scovering major gaps. in information provided ct x
.the beginning of the discovery cycle.
We think-it will be
~
impossible to adequately review and assimilate this materia ~1 and run several rounds of discovery in,an eight week period.1/
In the earlier phase of.th'ese. proceedings discovery took
~
approximately a year and a half [ Giv,en the volume of material and the absence"of d demonstration that limiting discovery to eight
+
,o,
weeks will actdally mo'Ye'the proce'eding along more expeditiously, s
1!
In effect, hpplicants' schedule leaves Intervenors only one week to review answers'and prepare questions in each round of discovery.
Moreover, there is no space in the schedule for resolution of objections.
mW
we think a much longer period -- at least as long as the projected period for release of the revised FES -- is appropriate.
(c)
The schedule proposed by Applicants does not contemplate discovery of new information relevant to old
~
contentions.
In our judgment, su'ch ' discovery is essential to understand whether and to what extent de,velopments since April,
~
1977, have been taken into account by the staff and Applicants and how such developments may have affected their analysis.
In particular, new technical.and environmental data, new studies and reports and new regulatory criteria may all be relevant to the project as it now stands. 8/ We see no reason to await; Applicants' second cycle to begin this disco'very. 'It can be started now, and doing so should help expedite the entire
~
process.
V In conclusion, Intervenors submit that discovery should
- s. -
b'e continuing, commencing. as of the, prehearing conference, and that it should conclude (except as to phase three) no sooner than
.-u the projected date for relsase'of 'fhe ' revised FES, i.e.,
r approximately December, 198'2, or lat'er if'the FES itself is
^
w.;
U'
-8/
A very preliminary list of some of this material l
i is attached as Appendix One.
1H O
released later. E/
(3)
Phase Three - Completion of the Prehearing Process
- Intervenors recognize that Applicants' third cycle is derived from the Board's prior orders of Octo'aer 9, 1975, and March 28, 1977, and they have no major problems with the timetables set forth. IS/
However, to the extent all discovery on milestone documents would'be limited'to this period, we suggest this makes little sense.
If, as noted above, a revised SSR or SER is released in June, three or four months before a final revised FES, we see no reason to hold off discovery for that interval.
It would contribute to speedier resolution of the entire matter to allow discovery on update documents at the time of-release.
Respectfully submitted, Eldon V.
C.
Greenber
.TUTTLE & TAYLOR T
1901,' L Street,_N.
-J' oWashington, D.C.
20036
(.202) 861-0666 E!
Intervenors h y['two caveats to this approach:
one, if there is addit'idnal disc Intervenors, l
extension of ths period may,be a,ovepy' directed at p'p ropriat e, for Intervenors' I
s expert resources are limited; and, two, if the staff or Applicants fail to provide tim.ely responses to discovery, the entire schedule i
should slip accordingly.
1E/
Intervenors do believe that two weeks to develop discovery to the environmental updates is too short and suggest that 30 days, as originally contemplated in the Board's order of October 9, 1975, is more appropriate.
_g_
a~ A. R-- % 20s Barbara A.
Finamore.
u S. Jacob Scherr Natural Resources Defense-Council, Inc.
1725 Eye Street, N.W.
. Washington, D.C.
20006 (202)~223-8210 Attorneys for Intervenors Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and the Sierra Club s
Dated:
February 8, 1982 Washington, D.C.
ee 9 e w
6-a eg W
e e
b
+
d'#
s.
O 6
<g-D' j
~
cd p.
~
F
~g..',
\\,
+.
6 4
g,
- t.. * '
s S
=
9
New Information Relevant to Intervenors' Contentions 1.
Contention 10(g) - relates to analysis of alternative sites which may have more favorable environmental and safety features.
The Commission has held that siting alternatives are relevant to this proceeding in order to determine whether substantially better alternatives are likely to be available to meet the program's informational goals.. New information includes:
a.
New meteorological data related to CRBR proposed site (see Amendments XI to ER, Section 2.6 and letters dated Novembe,r 20 and November 30, 1981 from Paul S. Check to John R. Longnecker.)
b.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,'NRC, Report of the Siting Policy Task Force (NUREG-0625) (Aug.
1979) sets forth, recommendations of a number.of charges to current NRC policy on nuclear power reactor siting, including:
1.
renewal of.present policy of permi;tting plant.
design features to compen. sate for unf avorabl-e -
site characterization in favor of emphasizing site isolation, and 2.
use of selective siting to reduce the.. risks
~
associated with, accidents beyond the design basis (Class 9).
~
c'.
Proposed revision of NRC reactor siting criteria
'(45 Fed. Reg. 50350, J.uly 29, 1980) (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemakihg).
Propo'sedrblere'g,arding.the.reviewofalternative d.
sites under-NEPA (43 Fed. Reg. 24168, April 9,
~
1980).
i e.
. Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statemen,t, for Revision of the Regulations Governing the Sist'ing.of., Nuclear. Power Plants (45 Fed. Reg.
t E79820, December 2, 1980).
f.
NRC, A Comparison of-Site Evaluation Methods (NUREG/CR-1684) (July 1981)
O 1
g.
These proposed rules arose from requirements of-the NRC FY 1980 Authorization Act (P.L. No.96-295, 94 Stat. 780, June 30, 1980) directing the NRC to develop regulations establishing demographic requirements for facility siting.
It also directed NRC to develop reactor siting criteria for new plants by_specifying maximum population density and population distribut. ion criteria independent of differences in design among plants and that in developing demographic criteria'a full range,of accidents, including those beyond the design base accident,'be considered.
h.
New emergency planning regulations (45 Fed. Reg. 55402, August 19, 1980).
See also NRC and Federal Emergency Management Agency, Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1) (Nov. 1980).
2.
Contention 2 - relates to the probability of core"
~
~~
~
disruptive accidents, the adequacy of Applicants'
" reliability pr and the inclusion of a core disruptive acciogram,in th'e CRBR design base.
New dent information includes.
a.
NRC proposed rule requiring improvements in reactor design to reduce the risks-from anticipated
\\
transients without scram-("ATWS") events (46 Fed.
Reg. 57521, November _24, 1981).
b.
Critiques [of the R'eactor Safety Studv, Main Report, U.S.
Nuclear,. Regulatory Commission, WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/014) (October 1975) (Rasmussen Report)
See Risk Assessment' Review Group Report to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG/CR-0400);
U Nuclear Regulatory Commission Statement of Risk A s se s sme'n t i.n Light of the' Risk Assessment Review l
'. Group?-Repor t,- Jan. 18, 1979.
i.
Implicationg of thI,TMI-2 accident, particularly c.
regarding.the effects of human error on failure to scram:
e I
c.
Continued.
See U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC Action 7 Tan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident (NUREG-0660) (Aug. 1980);
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Identification of New Unresolved Safety
' Issues Relating-to Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-0705) (March 1981);
See also Letter, dated January 27, 1982, from Richard Shikiar, Director, Social Change Study Center, to Dr. Thomas Cochran, NRDC (discussing presentation of Harold Denton, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, at Peer Advisory Panel meeting concerning qualifications of nuclear power plant operators),
d.
Discussion on pp. 120-121 of DOE's draft. supplement impact ststement on the LMFBR program describing research and testing programs that have occurred since 1975 (particularly reports listed on footnotes 1-and 4 on p. 141 of draf t).'..
e.
New Commission studies on appropriate safety goals; e.g.:
(i)
U.S. Nuclear Regolatory Commission, Workshop on Frameworks for Developing a Safety Goal (NUREG/CP-0018) (June 1981);
- (ii)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi6n,
- Toward a Safety Goal:
Discussion of Preliminary Policy Considerations 7(NUREG-0764)'(March 1981);
cd (iii)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, An Approdch to Quantitative Safety Goals for
~
Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-0739) 2'-
(October 1980).
1
.: G 3.
Contention 13iI're'lates'to Applicants' failure to establish that the co'nse,quences of core disruptive accidents are ad(quately described in the PSAR.
New information inc.l.udes:'
a.
Applicants have:modif.ied the computer codes used to simulate acciden.ts to determine their potential and 1
i
s.
a.
Continued.
magnitude.
-See PSAR Section 12, Appendix A; p. 121 of DOE Draft YTS Supplement; and letter, dated January 22, 1982 from Paul S. Check to John R.
Longnecker, b.
There have been.significant changes in reactor vessel and coreid.esign that must be reflected.in Applicants' accident modeling (See, e.g.,'PSAR Sections 4.1 and 4.2).
c.
New results on ongoing safety testing (see pp.
118-135 of DOE EIS draft and footnotes 4, 7, 8, 9,
' 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, etc. on pp. 141-144).
See also General Electric, An Assessment of HCDA Energetics in the CRBRP Heterogeneous Reactor Core (December 1981).
d.
List of unresolved safety issues at time of suspension of CRBRP licensing proceeding:
- Letter, dated November 9, 1978, from W.
P. Gammill to L. W'. ~
' " ~~
Caffey, " Summary of Outstanding Items."
e.
New regulations, e.g.:
(i)
"Licens,ing Requirements for Pending Constructio'n Permit and Manufacturing License Applications",-(47 Fed. Reg. 2286, t
January.15, 1982).' Based on Commission's effort' to apply lessons learned from the Three; Mile. Island Accident as reflected
'in "TMI Action Plan" (NUREG-0660) and
- " Licensing Requirements for Pending
'Appli, cati,ons for Construction Permits and Manufacturing License.
March 1981 (NUREG-0718) (Rev. July 10, 1981).
(ii)
Proposed rules to require improved 3 2 '.. hydrogen control capability during and
\\
-02 s following reactor accidents (46 Fed. Reg. 62281,tDecember 23, 1981) (see also 46 Fed. Reg.'57521, 47 Fed. Reg. 2286).
s f.
CEiticisms'of the Reactor Safety Study, Main Report, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, WASH-1400 ( NUREG-7 5/014 ) (October 1975), see Section 2(b), supra.
4.
Contentions 7 and 8 - Health Effects from Plutonium Exposure:
a.
New report:
National Academy of Science.
The Effects On Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (National Academy Press 1980)
(BEIR Report) b.
Reassessment of the magnitude and effects of neutron dosages at Hiroshima.
(See,.e.g., W.E.
Lowe and E. Mendelsohn, " Revised Dose Estimates at Hiroshima and Nagasaki" (UCRL 85446 preprint, 1 October 1980), available from Lawrence Lovermore National Laboratory).
c.
Three years of new results from ongoing beagle experiments (see',
e.g.,
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Wash., Annual Report for 1979 to the DOE Assistant Secretary for Environment (February 1980), and Cross, Palmer, Filipy, Dagle,,
and Stuart, Carcinogenic Effects of Radon Daughters, Uranium Ore Dust and Cigarette Smoke in Beagle Dogs."
(Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,. Wash., April 24, 1981).
d.
John W. Gofman, Radiation a'nd Human Health '(Sierra-Club Books, San Francisco 1981) (1000 p.)
6.
N,RC revisions to-Regulatory Guide 8.8, "Information
' Relevant to Ensu, ring that Occupational Radiation Exposures:at Nuclear Power Stations Will be as Low as is Reasonably. Achievable. "
(NRC Office of Standards ' Development),( Rev.
2, March 1977).
,. 9.,
f.
Changes in Applipants Radiation Protection Program (see PSAR Se~ctio.n 12,5 Amendments 40, 44, 45, 4 9 and
, 5 2 ).-
g.\\ New Rijdlatory. G'uides related to radiation
~
~
' proteEt fon, listed in' letter, dated January 13, 1982 from Pa,ul S., Check to John R.
Longnecker.
l' t
-re a es to Applicants' analysis of 5.
Contention 4 -
accident possibilities of greater consequence than the design base accident,.such.as accidents associated with sodium-concrete interactions and core catcher failure.
New information:
9
> ey
,r-
-m
a.
The NRC Staff nas conducted an analysis of such accident possibilities (see Appendix C to DOE's draft supplemental LMPBR impact statement, Excerpts from CRBR Safety Study, CRBRP-1, March 1977).
b.
New data related'.to an LMFBR's ability to accommodate core debris following a core disruptive accident (see, e.g.,
footnotes 36, 37, 39 and 40 on
. Critiques of the Reactor Safety Study, Main Report, U.S. NRC, WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/014) (October 1975) a (Rasmussen Report) (see Section 2(b) supra).
6.
Contention 9 relates to the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle' facilities associated with the CRBRP:
a.
New proposed' legislation and proposed regulations on siting and construction of waste disposal
~
facilities (see 46 Fed. Reg.-35280 (July '8, T98~1); ' '
46 Fed. Reg.
221 (November 15, 1978))
b.
New regulations'on-transportation of high level radioactive waste.s:
45 Fed. Reg. 7140 (January 31, 1980); 44 Fed. Re'g. 34446 (June _1.5, 1979)
~
c.
New studies and Administrative initiatives on
. potential for co'mmercial -reprocessing (see, e.g.,
Statement:of Pre,sident' Reagan, " Nuclear Energy Policy," 17 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1101-1102 (October L2, 1981)i Minutes of April 23, 1981 Meeting bdtween. DOE and Nuclear Industry RepresentatYves' Con'cerning Potential for Commercial Reprocessing (statement of Brian D.
Farrow, Senior
~
Vice President and Gdneral Counsel, Allied Commercial Corp. and W. Creighton Galloway, Exec.
i Vice -Pre'sident, General Atomic Co., " Prospects for Private-Investment in' Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing.")
i t.
d.
' Dramatically incres' sed weapons program may limit
~
the availab.ility of fuel for the CRBR (see, e.g.,
Hearings before the, Senate Committee on Environmen,tal and Public Works, Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation, D'ecember 8, 1981 at p. 3.)
5
7.
Contention 5 - relates to the health and safety consequences of acts of sabotage, terrorism or theft directed against the CRBR or supporting facilities.
New information:
a.
Changes in Applicants' safeguards program (see pp.
145-172 in DOE's'- draf t supplemental LMFBR impact statement).
b.
.New NRC regulations on physical security (10 CFR 573.55, " Requirements for Physical Protection of Licensed Activities in Ndelear P'ower Reactors Against Radi61ogical' Sabotage).
c.
Department of Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Civilian Nuclear Power:
Report of the Nonproliferation Alternative Systems Assessment Programs (DOE /NE-0001/7) (June 1980).
d.
Proposed NRC rules concerning material control and accountability. requirements for licensees possessing special nuclear materials (46 Fed. Reg. -
45144 (September 10, 1981)) (advance notice of proposed rulemaking).
e.
Several recent GAO reports concerning safeguards and physical security.-
~
~
(i)
" Security at Nuclear-P'owerplants--At Best,, Inadequate"~(4/7/77)
I ncladsified summary of a classified (ii)
U
. report entitl.ed, " Commercial Nuclear Fuel
- Facilities Ne.ed Better Security" (5/2/-77 ) s r
(iii)
Ldttet.to Chairman, John Dingell, U.S.
House of Representatives, Re:
unaccounted for nuclear material
~
.['(5/5/78)
'y (iv)
Un.clas'sifded summary of a classified rep,ortientitled, " States of Physical
' Security Improvements to ERDA Special Nuclear' Material Facilities" (9/8/77) 4 b
s e.
Continued.
(v)
" Federal Actions are Needed to Improve Safety and Security of Nuclear Materials Transportation" (5/7/79)
(vi)
Unclassified summary of classified report
- entitled, "U.S. Nuclear Safeguards -- A Nationdl strategy is Need" (2/19/80).
(vii)
" Nuclear Fuel, Reprocessing. and the-
- Ptoblems of Safeguarding Against the Spread of Nuclear Weapons" (3/18/80).
(viii)
Letter to Rep. Tim Wirth, Re:
Alleged missing material from DOE's Rocky Flats weapons production plant (10/1/80).
(ix)
" Nuclear Diversion in the U.S.?
13 Years of.Contradictors and Confusion" (12/18/78) Classified report with no-
~
unclassified summary.
~~
f.
Staff and Applicants have both conceded that changes in " dynamic factors at work in society" may
, necessitate chahges to present and current.ly foreseeable security requirements.
-(See, e.g.,
Staff answers to Part III, Inteyrogatory No. 7 of NRDC,' et al. 's Sixth Set o.f -Interrogatories to NRC x
, Staff).
g.
International Abomi'c' Energy Agency, International Fuel Cycle Evaluation (Vienna, 1980).
8.
Contention 14~ 'reliYesto the unavoidable adverse environmental effects' associated with the decommissioning 'of the CRBR.
New information:
'aa Recent evidence. indicates that permanent entombment i may no',t[be a viable form of decommissioning, since i
some reactor components will contain extremely long-lived isotopes'of nickel and niobium.
(see "A Long-Term Proble'm for the Nuclear Industry,"
Science, Vol. 215., January 22, 1982).
3 l
L l
L
b.
EPA'is preparing rules that would permit ocean dumping of low-level radioactive wastes.
(see
" Agency May Alter Atom Waste Policy,"
~-
Times, January 15, 1982).
c.
The Navy has issued a Notice of-Intent to Prepare an Environmental. Impact Statement on its plan to dispose of retired nuclear submarines in the ocean.
47 Fed. Reg. 2151 (January 14, 1982).
9.
Contention 15 - relates to Applicant's designation' of the quantitative vibratory ground motion design basis for the facility:
a.
New geologic and seismic information.
See letter, dated October 26, 1981.from Paul S.
Check to John R.
Longnecker.
b.
Incident at Diablo Canyon raises into question the acceptability of the NRC Staff's quality assurance program.
See Remarks of Nunzio J.
Palladino, '
- Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss'ioat~the~
n Atomic Industrial Forum Annual Conference 1981 (San Francisco, CA, December 1, 1981).
10.
Contention 6 - relates,to meteorology of CRBR and altern.ative sites:
a.
Applicants have developed new meteorological data.
.\\
See ER Section 2'6, Amendment XI, letter, dated November 30, 1981 from Paul S. Check to John R.
Longnecker.
~
'e
- 's
~ x l, N,
< 1. s t.
s 9
m m
s I
bfI, -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'82 RB -8. P 5 :13 I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Prenearing Conference Statement of Intervenors Natural Resources Duf'e'ne.T.":,L;;
d s ~
e.gd. -
u ;. :.
Council, Inc. and the Sierra Club were delivered by hand th'is 8th day of February, 1982, to the f.611owing:
Marshall E. Miller, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety & Ligensing Board U.S.
Nucle.;r Regulatory Commission 4350 East hest Highway Bethesda, Maryland Mr. Gust. ave A.,Linenberger Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East West Highway
~
Bethesda, Maryland
-~
Daniel Swanson, Esquire
~~
~
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
, Washington, D.C.
- 20555
~
Stuart Trebey, Esq'uire s
Of fice of Executive Legal...Dir'e,ctor
.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission x
Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington 7 D:C. 20555 Atomic Saf'ety &-Lic'ensing Board Panel
~
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~.
Washin.gton, D.C.
20555 N
Docketing &.Seyvice-Section Office of the Sectetary s
U.S. Nuclear Rdgulatory Commission "Nashington, D.C.
20555 (3 copies) m e
s -
R. Tenney Johnson, Esquire Leon Silverstrom, Esquire Michael D. Oldak, Esquire L. Dow Davis, Esquire Office of General Counsel U.S. Departmen.t of Energy Washington, D.C.
20585 George L. Ed g ar',
E' squire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 and by mail, postage prepaid, to:
Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
Director Bodega Marine Laboratory University of California P. O. Box 247 Bodega Bay, California 94923
~
Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esquire ~
General Counsel Tennessee Valley., Authority
. Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
'n Lewis E. Wallace, Esquire Division of Law Y
- Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennes,see 37902 William:B. H u,bbar d, Esquire Assistant Attorn,deey General.
State of'Tenness Office of.the Atto.rney General r
422 Supreme Court Building Nashville, Tennessee 37219
- \\
wr, N.
Lawson"McGhee Publi,c Library 500 West Church S Knoxville, Tennes,treet see 37902
Luther W. Reed, Esquire Attorney for.the City of Oak Ridge 253 Main Street, East Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 4
l
1 O
3-Oak Ridge Public Library Civic Center Oak Ridge-Tennessee 37820 Mr. Joe 3. Walker 401 Roane Street o
Harriman,'Tenn,essee 37748 Commissioner Jdmes'Cotham Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development i
n Andrew Jackson Building, Suite 1007 Nashville, Tennessee 32219 3
~
Eldon V.
C.
Greenberg
< s r
e*
6 e
g O
e
,m' l
p
~..
\\
~
s s
%=
o W
S e
A D
w j
b e
s l
=.
s
, 4 1
x N
w*s s
~
s I
l 3
e 4*
a l
~
l k
a, I
s e
~
L p.
--w.
v,,
e, y
,,.