ML20052F201
| ML20052F201 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1982 |
| From: | Silberg J CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205120223 | |
| Download: ML20052F201 (23) | |
Text
-
cnj.gTED 9 t':i in
- May 7, 1982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ) G g g
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-44 g ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. ) 50-4 _ '
) . -
- NAy YS (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) 9~ 17 3 Units 1 and 2) ) 82A q l A PP LIC A NTS ' ANSWER TO CHIO CITIZENS 4 ea FOR RESPONSIB LE ENERGY MOTION FOR W LEAVE TO FILE ITS CONTENTIONS 17, la and 19 Chio Citizens for Responsible Energy ("CCRE") has sub-mitted three new, untimely contentions which it would have the Licensing Board edmit as issues in this proceeding. The contentions deal with the design of the water intake structure, the use of commercial spent fuel for nuclear weapons, and polymer degradation from radiation exposure. Each contention is deficient for a number of reasons, including OCRF's fai}ure to demonstrate good cause as required by 10 CFR S 2. 714. ,
I. CONTENTION 17 - Substratum Placement of Water Tntake Structure This contention asserts that Applicants should discard the existing water intake system at Perry in favor of a system such c503 s
/ /
O205120223 0$ 0 40 PDR ADOC PDR G
as that installed at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station. The Grand Gulf intake system, according to CCRE, employs a series of five radial wells in which the water is not directly removed from the river, but rather is obtained through " induced infiltra-tion". OCRE Motion at 2-3. OCRE further contends that the change in the Perry water intake system is needed because the present system "will inflict unacceptable damage to the aquatic ecology of the site and the Central Basin of Lake Erie". Jd.
at 1.
OCRE does not take issue with the conclusion of the Perry draft Environmental Impact Statement that the impact of entrainment and impingement with the presently installed water intake system will be " minimal and insignificant". NUREG-0884, c 5.5.2.1 at 5-12 (March 1982).1/ OCRE itself refers to the finding of insignificant impacts. Motion at 2. However, because the impingement /entrainment losses, eccording to CCRE, "are not negligible", the Grand Gulf alternative design should be installed . -
1/ OCRE's reference (Motion at 2) to concerns expressed at the construction permit stage of " excessive impinge-ment /entrainment" are not relevant. At the time the Final Environmental Statement - Construction Permit Stage was issued, the Perry plant had a once-through cooling system. The design was changed to a closed-cycle system prior to the construction permit hearing. See Partial Initial Decision, LB P- 74 -6 9 , 8 AEC 538, 565 (1974).
I I
The contention fails to meet the basis and spe-cificity requirements established by the Commission's regula-tions and must therefore be rejected. The contention's key defect in this regard is CCRE's failure to provide any basis for believing that the Grand Gulf system is even potentially feasible at Perry. CCRE can only " surmise" and " suspect" that a well system could work at Perry.
4 This Intervenor surmises that it may be ,
possible for a well system to be success-fully employed at Perry, given the con-struction of additional wells.
OCRE further surmises that the stratigraphy may be quite suitable for collection wells.
1 Motion at 2-3 (emphasis added). CCRE neither provides any basis for believing that the well system would be applicable to i
Perry nor even an unsupported assertion of its applicability.
CCRE has failed to show any nexus between the Grand Gulf system and Perry. Without such a showing, the contention cannot be admitted. See Memorandum and Order (Concerning L3te Filed Contentions: Quality Assurance, Hydrogen Explosion, and Need for Increased Safety of Control System Equipment), dated March
- l. 3, 1982, slip op. at 4-5.
As the available documents in both this proceeding I
and Grand Gulf demonstrate, there is simply no basis for transferring the Grand Gulf well intake system design to Perry.
As stated in the Grand Gulf vinal Environmental Statement !
l 2/ NUREG-0777, Final Environmental Statement Pelated to the Cperation of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
- September 1981.
l l
___r . --. _,
(the same document rel.ied upon by CCRE), the well system involves six radial wells, each of which is a large, circular reinforced-concrete caisson, installed verti-cally, and extending down into the alluvial sediment adjacent to the (Mississippi] River. As many as 12 horizontal, screened, 16-in.-diameter pipes, called laterals, extend outward radially from the lower portion of the caisson about 60 m (200 ft) into the alluvial sediment.
NUREG-0777, S 4.2.3, p. 4-3 (emphasis added). At Perry, there is no alluvial sediment. While CCRE " suspects that the stratigraphy at the site mey be quite suitable for collection wclls," OCRE Motion at 2-3, the documents available to CCRE clearly demonstrate tha t this suspicion is totally baseless.
The first pc. int is that the bottom of Lake Erie at the Perry site does not have the alluvial sediments found at the Mississippi River at Grand Gulf. As the boring logs set forth in the Perry Final Saf=ty Analysis Report show, the 13ke bottom is largely bedrock, with only a thin veneer of sediments .
close to shore. See, e.g.,FSAR, Appendix 2E, pp. 2E-246 -
2E-29 7; 5 2.5.4.3.5, p. 2.5-131. Furthermore, the shale l bedrock is highly impervious to water infiltretion. See, e.g.
( FSAR, S 2.5.4.3.5, p. 2-130; S 2.5.4.6.2.1, p. 2.5-153; 5 2.5.4.6.3, p. 2.5-155; Environmental Report - Operating License Stage, f 2.1. 3. 7. 5, p. 2.1-18. So too are the lacustrine and glacial till strata which OCRE speculated "could
lend [themselves] well to the ' induced infiltration' the Grand Gulf plant will employ", OCRE Motion at 3. See, e.g., Draft Environmental Statement (NUREG-0884), 4 4.3.4, p. 4-15 (March 1982); FSAR, 9 2. 5.1.1. 7.1.1. g , p. 2.5-42; 9 2.5.4.6.2.2, p.
2.5-154; 5 2.5.4.6.2, p. 2.5-155. Finally, the documents explicitly state that wells in the Perry vicinity typically yield less than 5 gallons per minute. Staff Safety Evaluation Report - Construction Permit Stage, p. 2-23 (July 1974); Draft Environmental Statement ( NUREG-0 8 8 4 ) , f 4.3.5, p. 4-15 (March 1982); FSAR, f 2.4.13.1, p. 2.4-56, 57, 59, 60. Since, as CCRE admits, plant water use is about 69,400 gpm, about 14,000 wells would be required; this is a far cry from CCRE's unsupported surmise "that it may be possible for a well system to be successfully employed at Perry, given the construction of additional wells." OCRE Motion at 2. Simply put, the condi-tions at Perry are totally dissimilar to those at Grand Gulf.
CCRE's uninformed speculation cannot form the basis for an admissible contention.
In addition to failing to demonstrate that its contention has basis and specificity, OCRE has also failed to show good cause for its lateness.3/ The information on the 3/ The tests which a late filed contention must meet have Eeen set forth previously and will not be restated here. See, e.g., Applicants' Answer to Chio Citizens for Responsible Energy Motion for Leave to File Its Contention 16, dated December 17, 1981.
, Perry intake system and its insignificant environmental impact has been in the FSAR and the Environmental Report for years.
CCRE's only justification for its late submission is that the Grand Gulf Final Environmental Statement "was not received by this Intervenor until recently". OCRE Motion et 6. The Grand Gulf FES was issued in September 1981. The Draft Environmental i
Statement for Grand Gulf was issued in May 1981 and included the same description of the well intake system found in the FES. See Draft Environmental Statement Related tc the i Operation of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, NURE G-0 7 7 7, S 4.2.3 (May 1981). Federal Register notices of j the avail ability of both these reports were published. 46 Fed.
, Reg. 30923, " Availability of the Draf t Environmental Stat? ment for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2" (June 11, 1981); 46 Fed. Reg. 51330, " Availability of the Final Environmental Statement for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (October 19, 1981). By statute, Federal Register publication constituces constructive notice. 44 U.S.C. S 1507; Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947); Rodway
- v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 514 F. 2d. 809 (D.C. Cir.
1975). Thus, CCRE has had constructive notice of the Grand Gulf intake design since June 1981. Of course, the Grand Gulf FSAR and Environmental Report have contained the information
- long before June 1981. See,e.g., Grand Gulf Final Safety i
Analysis Report, S 3.4.5.
- . = . - - - , , . - . .
e Wholly apart from the availability of information on Grand Gulf's use of the well intake system, the concept has been discussed in the publicly available literature for many years. In 1976, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published its " Development Document for Best Technol.ogy Available for the Location, Design, Construction and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Env ironmeri '
Impact", EPA 440/1-76/015-a, representing EPA's study in compliance with Section 316(b) of the Federal Water Act. See 41 Fed. Reg. 1738 7 ( April 26, 1976). The Development Document describes the well intake system concept as one of the intake system designs which are available, and notes, p. 139, Radial well intakes have been in service for over 35 years and have been reliable.
Technical literature on this intake method detes back at least to a 194 7 publica tion in the Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineering, entitled " River Infiltration as a Source of Ground Water Supply", [ 73 (6): 837-85?].
l Thus, by no stretch of the imagination can the I
existence of this alternative design be called new information.
The only thing new is GCRE's belated interest in the issue.
This, however, cannot conceivably constitute " good cause". Nor has CCRE made any substantial showing as to the other factors to be considered with respect to a late contention. CCRE has shown no special competence to pursue this issue, as best illustrated by its failure to perceive the differences between the Mississippi River's alluvial sediments and the Lake Erie shale. OCRE also has another forum for raising these issues.
Under Section 316(b) of the Federal Water Act, made applicable in Ohio by Ohio Revised Code R.C. 6111.03, the appropriateness of the intake design is a matter for the Ohio Environmenta)
Protection Agency and the U.,S.E.P. A. to decide in a separate proceeding in which OCRE will have the opportunity to partici-pate.A!
For all of these reasons, OCRE has failed to estab-lish the admissibility of Contention 17 or good cause for its tardy submission.
II. CONTE NTION 38 - Use of Commercial Spent Fuel For Nuclear Weapons OCRE has also moved to supplement its Petition to Intervene to add a new contention entitled "Use of Commercial Spent Fuel for Nuclear Weapons." As its basis for the conten-tion, CCRE postulates that Applicants' spent fuel may be used for nuclear weapons. Such potential use, OCRE believes, should 4/ In fact S 511(c)(2) of the Federal Water Act, 3 3 U.S.C.
T3 71 ( c ) ( 2 ) , would appear to prohibit NRC from establishing a requirement (such as an alternate intake design) different from
- one approved by EPA. See Tennessee Valley Authority ( Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), A LAB-515 , 8 N.R.C. 702 (1978) (NRC may not establish water quality monitoring condi-i tions different than those established by under the Federal I
Water Act).
be considered by the Licensing Board pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ( " NE PA" ) , 42 U.S.C. S 4332.
The simple end dispositive answer to OCRE's request is that NRC regulations expressly prohibit consideration of this type of contention in licensing proceedings. 10 C.F.R.
S 50.13 provides as follows:
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 sabotage directed aginst the j f acility 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. (emphasis added)
It has been held that 10 C.F.R. S 50.13 is applicable to both the FEC's NE P A 2nd Atomic Energy Act responsibilities, and tha t the regulation prohibits consideration of its subject matter in licensing proceedings. See Long Island Lighting Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), A LAB-15 6 , 6 A . E.C. 831, 851 (1973); accord, Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), A LAB-218 , 8 A.E.C.
79, 81 n.7 (1974); see also Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. (Indian Point Station, Unit 2), A LAB-20 2 , 7 A.E.C. 825, 829-30 (1974), affirmed on point, C LI- 74 -2 3 , 7 A.E.C. 94 7, 948 n.2 (1974); Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 ) , LBP-79-6, 9 N.R.C. 291, 3
- , . - - - - - - - . - - ,-,,-,,,r.- , . . . - - - - . . _ _ _ _ _ ~ -- __ - - - - - - - - > . - - ~ . _ -
324-25 (1979); see generally Siegel v. Atomic Energy Comm'n, 400 F.2d 778 (D.C. Cir. 1968). Because Contention 18 i effectively would require Applicants "to provide for . . .
l measures for the specific purpose of protecting against the
- effects of . . . use or deployment of weapons incident to U.S .
defense activities," the contention cannot be admitted.
4 Even if the contention were not inadmissible under 10 C.F.R. S 50.13, CCRE has failed to provide any basis for admitting the contention. See 10 C.F.R. S 2. 714 ( b) . CCRE asserts that from certain " indications," it appears that a plan may be enacted "in the near future" to use Applicants' spent fuel for nucleer weapons. Quite to the contra ry, all available indications suggest tha t Applicants ' spent fuel will not be used for nuclear weapons. On March 30, 1982, the United S ta tes
, Senate, by a vote of 88 to 9, passed an amendment to the NRC Authorization Bill, H.R. 2?30, prohibiting the transfer, use, or reprocessing of special nuclear material from commercial nuclear power plants for weapons purposes.5/ 128 Cong. Rec.
S2959 - S2966, S2978 - S2981. CCRE thus is asking this Board I
1
- 5/ The amendment reads as follows
i j Add a new subsection 57(e) to the Atomic Energy Act, j as amended, as follows: "Special nuclear material, as
, defined in Section 11, produced in facilities licensed
- under Section 103 or 104 may not be transferred, repro-cessed, used or otherwise made available by any instru-i mentality of the United States or any other person for i nuclear explosive purposes".
f
,, , , , , , , , , - - - - - , - - - ,-_,,,,,,,w -
,- - a . . - , ~ n ,m . .- -- - , . - , - , , , , e - - , - , ,
),
to assume a situation that OCRE concedes is not current policy l and that the Senate has moved affirmatively to prohibit.5!
Contention 18 not only is without factual basis--it lacks any logical foundation. OCRE asks this Board to incor-porate in the NRC's NEPA analysis the environmental costs of using spent fuel for nuclear weapons. Even assuming that such an environmental assessment could realistically be made,2/
OCRE 's underlying assumption is without merit. OCRE apparently believes that if spent fuel from commercial power plants is not available for this nation's nuclear weapons program, there will 6/ OCRE concedes tha t "the use of commercial spent fuel to make nuclear armaments is not current policy." OCRE Motion at
- 4. It, nevertheless, contends that since "it is difficult to predict events 40 years hence," the contention should be admitted. If the mere possibility of statutory or regulatory change over the next forty years were a sufficient basis to admit a contention, it is difficult to conceive of any issue--no matter how fanciful--that could not be brought into the licensing process. Indeed, under such a standard, the validity of every Commission rule could be litigated; for what regulation is wholly immune from the possibility of change over the next forty years? This type of speculative inquiry has no proper place in a NEPA analysis. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natu ral Resources Defense - Council, 435 U. S . 519, 551 (1978).
1/ Arguably, such an analysis would require the Licensing Board to assess both the increased risk and total environmental cost of a nuclear war.
Evec if the Licensing Board should attempt to conduct the NEPA analysis OCRE requests, because much of the necessary information is classified, it is unlikely that the Licensing Board could make a realistic assessment of the involved environmental impact. See generally Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii / Peace Education Project, 102 S.Ct. 197 (1981).
be insufficient plutonium to arm this nation's nuclear weapons.
OCRE thus concludes that the availability of spent fuel increases the number of nuclear weapons the United States possesses, thereby creating an environmental cost that must be analyzed under NEPA. OCRE's entire argument is predicated on its mistaken assumption that the number of nuclear weapons the United States possesses is a function of available spent fuel from commercial power plants.
CCRE has not provided any support for its fantastical argument that the United States' nuclear weapons program is or ever will be limited by the availability of spent fuel from commercial power plants. The simple reality is tha t the number, magnitude and type of weapons in this nation's nucleer arsenal are determined by international and domestic political considerations, and not the availability of commercial spent fuel. This point was made clear in the 'Sena te deba tes on the above discussed amendment to the NRC Authorization Bill restricting the use of commercial spent fuel for. nuclear weapons. See note 5, supra. In his defense of the amendment, Senator Hart, the leading sponsor and floor manager of the measure, made the following statement:
[T]his amendment would not in any way interfere with this administration's plans to expand this Nation's nuclear weapons arsenal, if it is agreed by Senators that that is desirable in terms of this country's overall policy. In a briefing for members of the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation, a DCE representative said that current DOE efforts to increase the production of plutonium will satisfy current U. S . nuclear weapons produc-tion plans. Moreover, if extraordinary 1
circumstances should arise in which the United States required additional plutonium beyond the amounts currently projected, the DOE has several options for supplying that need other than extracting the plutonium in commercial spent reactor fuel.
128 Cong. Rec. S2959 (March 30, 1982).
These remarks concerning DOE projections were echoed by Senator Simpson in his statement:
[I]n discussing projected materials requirements and production capabilities for the atomic energy defense program, it became quite apparent tha t , based upon presently identified stockpile needs, the Depar tment 's material requirements can be met without having to resort to spent fuel from commer-cial power reactors as a source of plutonium.
Id.
Even more pertinent is a Department of Defense letter to Senator Tower reprinted in full in the Congressional Record.
That letter states that although many initiatives are being pursued to increase production of plutonium, present planning "does not include the use of special nuclear materials produced in NRC licensed facilities." Indeed, the letter categorically
! states that "[n]o proposals to take such a step are under active consideration." Id. at S2960.8/
l 8/ See also the remarks of Senator Glenn at S2964 - S2966, in which he explains in detail why there is more than sufficient plutonium for this nation's nuclear arms program without use of commercial spent fuel.
(Continued Next Page)
_ _ m Finally, OCRE's request for NEPA review is in contravention of established case law on the proper timing for such review. It is well established that NEPA review of a particular agercy action is only required once that action has been submitted as an agency proposal. See, e.g., Kleppe v.
Sierra Club, 42 7 U.S. 390 (1976); Aberdeen & Rockfish R.R. Co.
- v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures
( "S.C . R. A . P. II"), 422 U. S. 289 (1975). As recently reartirmed by the Supreme Court in Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii / Peace Education Project, supra, "an EIS need not be prepared simply because a project is contemplated, but only when the project is proposed." 102 S.Ct. at 203 (emphasis in original). Here, CCRE requests review of a postulated federal action--the use of commercial spent fuel for nuclear weapons--that cannot in any sense be considered as having been
" proposed" within the meaning of NE PA . If and when such use should be proposed, NEPA review may be necessary (though the NRC may not be the appropriate agency to conduct that review).
But NE PA review at this time is clearly inappropriate--there simply is no cognizable proposal to review.EI (Continued)
In this regard, it should be noted that the technolog y.
needed to make use of commercial spent fuel for nuclear weapons does not even appear to be available at this time. Id. at S2980 (remarks of Senator Simpson).
0/ The rule established by the Supreme Court in Kleppe and S.C.R.A.P. II on the proper timing of NEPA review is related to (Continued Next Page) i t
In sum, CCRE has provided no factual or legal basis for Contention 18 that would justify its admission. Simply put, CCRE postulates an unrealistic hypothetical and asks the Licensing Board to conduct a difficult and costly analysis of the possible environmental impact of that hypothetical. NEPA, however, does not require agencies to explore " remote and speculative possibilities;" it contemplates no more than an environmental analysis of " circumstances as they exist and are likely to exist." Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 ), A LA B-5 6 2 , 10 N.R.C. 437, 446 (1979). Should OCRE's postulated hypothetical ever reach the status of an actual proposal--something that appears unlikely at this time--OCRE and other interested parties will have their opportunity to seek the appropriate NEPA review.
Contention 18 cannot be admitted.
(Continued) the doctrine of ripeness. See generally 3-K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise SS- 21.01 - 21.10 (1958). As with ripeness, the Kleppe rule precludes challenges to agency actions that have not yet actually manifested themselves.
Unless NEPA review is limited to submitted agency proposals, intervenors could' require NEPA review of virtually any hypo-thetical environmental impact--no matter how speculative and unreal the postulated events may be. One of the distinct advantages of the Kleppe rule is that the substantial adminis-trative costs of a NEPA review will not have to be incurred by an agency until it is determined that there is an actual need for such review; that is, until there is an ectual agency proposal.
III. CONTENTION 19 - Polymer Degradation from Radiation Exposure CCRE's third proposed untimely contention alleges tha t radiation-induced embrittlement of polymers, especially those used as electrical insulation, may compromise plant safety. OCRE bases this contention upon a brief news article which appeared in the March 27, 1982, issue of Science News.
The article reported on tests done at Sandia National Laboratories which found that radiation-induced degradation from the same cumulative exposure occurs faster at low dose rates than at high dose rates.
This is not the first tine that OCRE has relied upon a news report to justify an untimely contention. OCRE's proposed late contention on core catchers was justified in the same manner. The Licensing Board properly excluded that contention based on CCRE's failure to show good cause.
We agree with applicant t?.a t the appearance of a newspaper article does not in and of itself create cause for late filing under the criteria set forth in-S 2.714. The information reflected in the cited article is not new. The idea of a core catcher is more than a decade old. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. (Indian Foint Station Unit No. 2), LBP-72-16, 5 AEC 43, 52 l (1971). The idea of using the core catcher l for the floating nuclear plant was included in the draf t Final Encironmental Statement (Part-III) issued in May 1978.
We agree with applicant that permit-
, ting a newspaper article, reflecting information widely available previously, to be good cause for late filing would virtually wipe out the requirement of l
l l
l i.
cause. This is unlike the appearance of a scholarly article containing new analysis.
Memorandum and Order (Concerning La te-Filed Contentions : Waste Disposal and MgC2 Bricks), da ted February 26, 1982, slip op. at 4.5Sl As with the core catcher contention, the effect of radiation dose rate on polymer degradation has been discussed in the published literature for many years. The dose rate question is covered in standard texts, pubilshed papers and other sources as well. A quick, and certainly non-exhaustive, search has identified the following discussions of this subject.
. 1. Chapiro, Radiation Chemistry of Polymeric Systems (1962), pp. 360-61, 387, 425-26.
- 2. Makhlis, Radiation Physics and Chemistry of Polymers (1973), pp.
151-54.
- 2. Schnabel, " Degradation by High Energy Radiation", in Jellinek, Aspects of Degradation and Stabilization of 10/ Unlike OCRE's late filed contention on electro-magnetic pulse, which was supported by " scholarly article containing new analysis", the Science News article relied upon to support OCRE's proposed Contention 19 is a short news report, with neithor analysis nor scholarship.
Polymers (1978), pp. 169, 172 (citing published studies dating back to 1955).
- 4. Kuriyama, " Effects of Dose Rate on Degradation Behavior of Insulating Polymer Materials", IEEE Trans. on Electrical Insulation, vol. EI-14, no.
4 4
5 (1979).
1 The issue is also identified in industry standards and spe-cifications.
{ l. IEEE 278-1967, " Electrical Insulating Materials Exposed to Neutron and Gemma Radiation" (1967), p. 4 ("there is i
evidence thet radiation ef fects are not independent of exposure rate. For example, radiation-induced oxida tion of the material can become an impor-tant damage mechanism at lower exposure rates and consequently longer exposure times").
s
- 2. ASTM D 2953-71, " Standard Classifica-tion Systeme for Polymeric Materials t for Service in Ionizing Radiation" (1971), para. 3.4.
's t
r !
i i
-.,__.,,....,._.,-,-.m.,_,....,-..- ..,._,,.,.mm..r_._._ _ , . _ . . - _ _ . , , _ ... . . , _ . - . - , _ , _ - - - , - - . _ _ , . ., 4 - -
.~. -~ . - ._ . - - . .
Both these documents are cited in the current environmental J
qualification standard, IEEE-327-1974, para. 6.3.4 As in the case of CCRE's proposed Contention 17, the issue is not new, only OCRE's interest in it. The Sandia experiments merely provide additional test results. And those results were published a year ago. See Gillen & Clough, " Occurrence and Implications of Radiation Dose-Rate Effects for Material Aging Studies", NUREG/CR-2157 (June 1981).
Nor is OCRE helped by a consideration of the other factor to be evaluated for late filed contentions. As in the core catcher contention, Memorandum and Order, dated February
! 26, 1982 at 5, OCRE has shown no special competence to pursue
! this issue. Nor has OCRE indicated why the pending rulemaking l
on Environmental Qualifications of Electric Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants, 47 Fed. Reg. 2876 (January 20, 1982) is
- not satisfectory as a forum for its concerns.11/ OCRE has simply failed to meet the standards required to justify j admission of this late-filed contention.
l 11/ The proposed rule contains language which would appear to
} address the issue raised by OCRE l
The radiation environment (used in the environmental qualification program] must be based on the type of radiation and the dose and dose rate of radiation expected during normal operation over the installed life of the equipment plus the radiation environment associated with the most severe i
design basis event. . ..
Proposed S 50.49 (d)(4), 47 Fed. Reg. at 2878.
1 i
i i
One other point is worth noting. The concern expressed in the Science News report is with radiation effects on polymers at dose rates which "more closely simulate the nuclear power plant environment." Attachment 3 to CCRE Motion. ;
Many commercial reactors have already operated for long periods i of time -- for example, 21 years in the case of Yankee Rowe.
If degradation has actually been occurring in commercial reactors, it would already have been manifested. If it is to occur in the future, it will certainly occur in plants that have operated for long periods before it happens at Perry.
- Thus, the plants already operating constitute a built-in surveillance program for the type of low-dose rate degradation described by CCRE.
In sum, OCRE has failed to justify admission of its j untimely Contention 19.
Respectfully submitted, i
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE b
By (, A
(
"*4 i,
e
/f
!M.v J a y ,lB . Silberg ,' P.C. !
I Rob "t LI Willmore
! 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Dated: May 7, 1982 i
1 l . - . - _ . - - - . .- . -
-. ~ -. - -.- _. - - - _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
i
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 4 ILLUMINATING COMPANY, e__t a_l . _
) 50-441
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
, Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing
" Applicants' Answer To Ohio Citizens For Responsible Energy Motion For Leave To File Its Contentions 17, 18 and 19", were served by deposit in the U.S. Mail, First Class, postage prepaid,-this 7th day of May 1982, to all those on the attached Service List.
i 6
Jay E. Silberg, P.C.
4 i
l
- Dated
- May 7, 1982 4
O t
i
. _ - . m _ _ _ _ , _ . _ . - . - , _ _ _ _ ,...._.,,...,,._-.,.._,.-.,,_,,_..,__m.__ , _ . . , _ , . _ _ _ , . ~ , _ _ . _ ., . , . - _ , _ _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440
' ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. )
-~
50-441
) ,
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2 )
. SERVICE LIST Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
, Dr. Jerry R. Kline Docketing and Service Section
> Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Frederick J. Shon James H. Thessin, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the E::ecutive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washin gtc r. , D.C. 20555 Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Atomic Safety,and Licensing Ms'. Sue Hiatt Appeal Board OCRE Interim Representative U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8275 Munson Avenue I Washington, D.C. 20555 Mentor, Ohio 44060 Dr. John H. Buck Daniel D. Wilt, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Wegman, Hessler & Vanderburg l Appeal Board Suite 102 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7301 Chippewa Road Washington, D.C. 20555 Brecksville, Ohio 44141 Gary J. Edles, Esquire Terry Lodge, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing 915 Spitzer Building l
Appeal Board Toledo, Ohio 43604 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D.C. 20555 _ _ _ , _ _
r j Atomic Safety and Licensing l Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al.
Service List Page Two Donald.T. Ezzone, Esquire Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Lake County Administration Center 105 center Street Painesville, Ohio 44077 John G. Cardinal, Esquire Prosecuting Attorney Ashtabula County Courthouse '
Jefferson, Ohio 44047 4
e 1
0 0
-- _. y- , - . . , .. .,, - . _.