ML20054F971
| ML20054F971 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1982 |
| From: | Baxter T CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054F959 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206180289 | |
| Download: ML20054F971 (87) | |
Text
._ ;
64
'Y,.,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- i7
" i'l / ?
,,1 : q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- 1 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN
)
50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION TO INTERVENE BY CHAPEL HILL ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP EFFORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROJECT George F.'Trowbridge, P.C.
Thomas A.
- Baxter, P.C.
John H.
O'Neill, Jr.
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE Richard E.
Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Counsel for Applicants June 15, 1982 l
8206180289 820615 PDR ADOCK 05000400 0
i,
)
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INDEX........................................................iv I.
INTRODUCTION............................................
1 II.
RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS.................................
3 A.
Requirements for Contentions......................
3 B.
Need for Power, Alternative Energy Sources, Cost-Benefit Analysis.....................
3 1.
Need for Power (Contentions 20, 47, 49-52)................................
4 2.
NEPA Cost-Benefit Balance (Contentions 6,
7, 8,
38, 48, 75, 78, 79)..................
7 3.
Psychological Stress (Contentions 39, 40)......................................
12 C.
Other Environmental Issues........................
13 1.
Surface Water Monitoring (Contentions 65-67).......................................
13 2.
Radiological Monitoring (Cententions 69-71).......................................
15 3.
Ingestion Pathway Analysis (Contentions 56-59).......................................
17 4.
Mixing and Dispersion Models (Contentions 53, 60)......................................
21 5.
Operational Phase Sampling Plan and Tobacco (Contention 68)......................
23 6.
Steam Generator Tube Rupture (Contention 74). 25 7.
Algal Blooms (Contention 55).................
26
-i-
s,
's Page 8.
Accident Releases to the Atmosphere.
(Contention 76)..............................
28 9.
Backflush Storage (Contention 54)............
29 10.
Alternative Supply of Drinking Water-(Contention 18)..............................
29 D.
Health Effects (Contentions 1, 19, 61, 72, 73).......................................
31 E.
Waste Storage and Transportation.................
.36 1.
Spent Fuel Transportation (Contentions 9, 10, 77)......................
36
)
2.
Long-term Spent Fuel Storage (Contention 11)..............................
39 F.
Decommissioning (Contentions 13, 62, 63, 64)...........................................
39 G.
Construction Deficiencies / Quality Assurance (Contention 16).........................
42 H.
Risk Assessment / Accident Analysis (Contentions 2, 5)................................
43 I.
Plant Design......................................
44 1.
Radiological Monitoring (Contentions 34, 35).........................
44 2.
Systems Classification l
(Contention 24)..............................
45 3.
Failure Modes (Contentions 14, 23, 25, 26)..................................
47 4.
Reactor Vessel (Contentions 27, 28)..........
51 5.
Steam Generators (Contentions 29-33).........
54 i
6.
Valves (Contentions 42, 43)..................
58 l
-ii-l l
l i
l l
s O
Page 7.
Water Level Instrumentation (Contention 44)..............................
61 J.
Emergency Planning (Contentions 3, 4,
15, 41, 46).....................,..................
61 K.
Security Plan (Contention 45).....................
67 s
L.
Management Capability (Contentions 21, 22, 36 and 37)....................................
68 f
i M.
Municipal Power Agency 4
(Contentions 12,12-13A)..........................
75 N.
Miscellaneous (Contentions 17,.,80)................
77 "s
t "
i
'/
s
/
III.
CONCLUSION..............................,.................,8p a
V g
6
+
E J_,
e 4.
.[
.J f y
sf
- xp
[
.o i
i'
/
-iii-J
.4 4
-)
/
o INDEX Contention Page Contention ~
Page I
1 31 23 48 l
2 43 24 45 f
3 61 25 49
.x l..
4 '-
62 26 50 5
43 27 52-
'~
l 6
7 28
'53 i
7 7
29 54 8
8 30 54 t
9 36 31 56
./
10 36 32 57 11 39 33 57 l
12 75 34 44 l
l 12-13A 76 35 45 13 40 36 70 14 47 37 72
,s 15 65 38 9
16 42 39 12 17 77 40 12 l
18 29 41 65 19 31 42 58 20 3
43 59 21 68 44 61 22 68 45 67
-iv-l I.
.L__...__.-_,,__-.._
1 Contention Page Contention Page 46' 66 70-15 47 5
71 16 48 10 72 33 49 5
73 33 50 5
74 25 51 6
75 11 52 6
76 28 53 21 77 36 54 29 78 11 55 26 79 11 56 18 80 78 57 19 58 19 59 20 60 21 61 31 62 40 63 40 64 41 65 13 66 13 67 13 68 23 l
l 69 15 l
l
-V-r l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN
)
50-401 OL 4
MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION TO INTERVENE BY CHAPEL HILL ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP EFFORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROJECT I.
INTRODUCTION By " Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene," dated May 14, 1982, as amended by " Amendment of Petition for Leave to Intervene," dated May 24, 1982, the Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Group Effort (CHANGE) together with the Environmental Law Pro-ject (ELP) (hereinafter referred to as " Petitioner" or
" CHANGE /ELP") proposed 80 enumerated " contentions."1 Applicants herein present their analysis of the contentions proposed by Petitioner.
1 The Petition at page 18 indicates that the contentions at pages 20-23 (and numbered there as 1 to 33) are contentions 47 to 79 Applicants have renumbered their copy of pages 20 to 23 and refer herein to those contentions by their new numbers.
i l
l Seven prospective intervenors in the above-captioned I
l proceeding have filed proposed contentions.
Mr. Wells Eddleman l
proposed approximately 135 enumerated contentions which are addressed in " Applicants' Response to Supplement to Petition to Intervene by Wells Eddleman" (hereinafter referred to as l
" Applicants' Response to Eddleman"), which has been filed with all prospective parties contemporaneously with this response.
In several instances issues raised by CHANGE /ELP are subsumed in contentions proposed by Mr. Eddleman.
Thus, rather than duplicating the detailed responses to Mr. Eddleman's similar i
l l
contentions here, Applicants have liberally cross-referenced l
here to the discussion in Applicants' Response to Eddleman.
We have grouped CHANGE /ELP proposed contentions in the came main subject matter categories used in our response to Mr.
Eddleman's contentions.
(See the Table of Contents for an overview of the designated groups and order of presentation).
It is Applicants' hope that the subject matter groupings will facilitate Board decision-making where common legal principles and factual circumstances apply, and will provide for an easier identification of shared interests among the various peti-l tioners.
i l
. l l
\\
II.
RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS A.
Requirements for Contentions See Applicants' Response to Eddleman at 2-16 for a general discussion of the legal requirements which proposed contentions must meet in order to be admitted for adjudication in this proceeding.
B.
Need for Power, Alternative Energy Sources, Cost-Benefit Analysis Petitioner seeks to interject the issues of need for power power and alternative energy sources into this proceeding in a number of contentions.
Furthermore, Petitioner challenges the cost benefit balance struck by Applicants in the Environmental Report.
In Petitioner's proposed Contention 20 (Petition at 8-9) it is acknowledged that the issues of need for power and alternative energy sources have been removed from operating license proceedings by Commission rule.
See 10 C.F.R.
S 51.53(c) and discussion in Applicants' Response to Eddleman i
j at Section II.B.
As a result, the cost-benefit balance performed by the Commission at the operating license stage is necessarily narrowed.
CHANGE /ELP has ignored the Commission's l
l new rule and its application in proposing a number of impermissible contentions.
l Petitioner seeks an exception to or waiver of the appli-cation of the Commission's rule on need for power.
Petition at 9-10.
CHANGE /ELP, however, has not filed a petition for such a waiver or exemption, accompanied by the required affidavit, and does not make the prima facie showing pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.758.
Thus, CHANGE /ELP has not made a showing of "special circumstances" with respect to the application of 10 C.F.R.
S 51.53(c) in the instant proceeding.
We address each of the contentions in this group seriatim below.
1.
Need for Power (Contentions 20, 47, and 49-52)
Contention 20 would interject the need for the Harris Plant as an issue before this Board.
As set out in detail in Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Section II.B, the need for the Harris Plant is not a cognizable issue before this Board in an operating license proceeding.
As discussed above in the introduction to this group of contentions, CHANGE /ELP has not made the requisite showing under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.758 in order to seek a waiver of the application of the Commission's rule in this proceeding.
Beyond that, Petitioner does not provide any basis with the requisite specificity for the allegations made regarding an overestimation of the need for the Harris Plant.
! l
Contention 47 challenges the energy forecast on which Applicants base the need for the Harris Plant.
CHANGE /ELP provides no basis for its challenge.
Furthermore, this contention is proscribed by the Commission's rule on need for power.
See 10 C.F.R.
S 51.53(c) and Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Section II.B and Contention 14.
Contention 49 challenges the 20% reserve margin assumed for the Applicants' system.
Again, Petitioner provides no basis whatsoever for the contention that lower reserve margins are " practicable and more economical."
The challenge to the reserve margins is simply a challenge to the need for the Harris Plant and is an impermissible contention in the operat-ing license proceeding.
See Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Section II.B and Coatention 23a.
Contention 50 asserts that "[t]he purpose of the proposed facility is inadequately stated in light of the fact that the company does not have any significant plan for reducing peak demand or otherwise aggressively taking control of demand and achieving flat load."
Once again, Petitioner provides abso-lutely no basis for this statement.
Beyond that, as discussed above, the need for the Harris Plant is impermissibly raised in an operating license proceeding.
See Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Section II.B and Contention 60.,
Contention 51 challenges "the objective" of the Harris plant.
Petitioner asserts "it has contributed to a tremendous increase in electric rates, and is not a suitable means of achieving an adequate supply-of electricity."
- Again, CHANGE /ELP provides absolutely no basis for its assertion.
Furthermore, Contention 51 is simply another challenge to the nsed for the Harris Plant which is impermissibly raised in an operating license proceeding.
See Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Section II.B and Contention 14.
Contention 52 challenges Applicants' analysis of the impact of delay on the need for the Harris Plant.
The informa-tion provided by Applicants in the ER regarding the need for the Harris plant is no longer relevant in the operating license proceeding.
See 10 C.F.R. S 51.21.
Petitioner argues that a conservation effort on the Applicants' part could overcome the impacts of delay in the Harris plant operations.
Again, this contention is a challenge to the Commission's rule.
The issue of conservation as a way to obviate the need for power or as an alternative energy cource is not before this Board.
See Appli-cants' Response to Eddleman at Section II.B and at Contention 60.
l L
t 2.
NEPA Coat-Benefit Balance (Contentions 6, 7,
8, 38, 48, 75, 78, 79)
Contention 6 attacks the cost-benefit balance used by Applicants because of the increase in construction costs of the plant.
The cost-benefit balance justifying construction of the plant was struck at the construction permit stage and is not an issue before the Board in this proceeding.
See Carolina Power
& Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2,
3 and 4), LBP-78-4, 7 N.R.C.
92, 144 (1978).
The only issue before the Board in this proceeding is whether or not the units, once conetructed, should be operated.
As discussed in Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Section II.B and Contentions 16-17, construction costs are not taken into account in the cost-benefit balance at the operating license stage.
Contention 6 is not a cognizable issue before this Board.
Contention 7 alleges that construction of the Harris plant "has placed added burdens on an already strained capital market and increased interest rates in the economy as a whole."
CHANGE /ELP provides no basis with the requisite specificity for this contention.
However the impacts, as alleged, have nothing to do with operation of the plant, but rather with construction of the plant.
Thus, for the reasons discussed in addressing 1 J
5 Contention 6, this issue is not cognizable in the operating license proceeding.
u Petitioner contends in Contention 8 that Applicants "have failed to adequately consider the long-and short-term economic costs of a severe accident with release of radioactivity."
In the Commission's interim policy statement on " Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 45 Fed. Reg. 40101 (1980), the NRC Staff was directed to consider the environmental risk (impact) attributable to accidents at a particular facility within the scope of each environmental impact statement prepared after the Statement of Interim Policy.
It is anticipated that the NRC Staff will provide such a reasoned consideration of envi-ronmental risks including the probability of occurrence of environmental consequences of such releases.
After the Staff releases its Draft Environmental Statement, CHANGE /ELP may, within a reasonable time, file proposed contentions based on the new information presented in the Draft Environmental Statement regarding the environmental impacts of Class 9 accidents.
Applicants will stipulate that such contentions will not be challenged as untimely filed and may be admitted by the Board if found to state an issue with basis and requisite specificity, based on new information, that is cognizable before the Board in the operating license proceeding.
See Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Contention 126.
By Contention 38 Petitioner challenges the application of l
Table S-3 in considering the environmental effects of "long-
[
term isolation of high-level and transuranic wastes."
CHANGE /ELP cites in support of this challenge Natural Resources l
l Defense Council v. NRC, F.2d (D.C. Cir., April 27, 1982).
Petitioner fails to provide any bases with the requisite specificity for the allegation that Table S-3 fails to provide proper consideration of long-term isolation of high-level and transuranic wastes.
The citation to the recent Court of Appeals decision is merely legal argument rather than the requisite bases and specificity for a contention in an NRC proceeding.
In any event, pending reconsideration or appeal of the Court of Appeals decision, we expect the Commission to continue to apply Table S 2 in considering the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle as they apply to the opera-tion of a nuclear power plant.
Thus, by rule, this issue is not cognizable before the Board in an individual operating license proceeding.
CHANGE /ELP has not met the requirements to petition a waiver of the application of the rule in this l
proceeding as set forth in 10 C.F.R.
S 2.758.
_9_
Petitioner asserts in Contention 48 that the assumed capacity factor for the Harris Plant is incorrect for nuclear units and therefore alleges that the benefit of the Harris plant is overemphasized.
CHANGE /ELP once again offers no basis whatsoever for this contentica.
As discussed in Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Contention 15, the existing ER cost-benefit analysis will be replaced by an analysis of the differential savings in operating costs alone between the Harris units and other available generating capacity, consis-tent with the Commission's amendments to Part 51.
The new analysis will consider a range of capacity factors and will show that the incremental operating cost savings per kilowatt hour of production are not very sensitive to capacity factor.
Unless Petitioner raises this contention on capacity factor in the context of the incremental operating savings, and provides the requisite basis and specificity, the contention should be disallowed.
Applicants will stipulate that CHANGE /ELP may file a new contention on capacity factor, if it desires, within a reasonable time after Applicants' submission of the revised information for the ER on cost-benefit balance.
See generally Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Section II.B and l
Contentions 15 and 23a.
I
-10
Contention 75 states:
"Section 7.0 (of the ER] is inade-quate because it does not assess the effects of a Class 9 accident."
Applicants were not required to address the envi-ronmental risks associated with class 9 accidents since the Environmental Report was submitted to the NRC prior to July 1, 1980.
45 Fed. Reg. at 40103 (1980).
See Applicants' Response to Contention 8, supra.
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 78 alleges that Applicants have incorrectly listed the benefits of the Harris plant in two ways.
Petition at 23.
Paragraph (a) states that the capacity factor for the plant is not substantiated.
This allegation duplicates Petitioner's Contention 48, and should not be admitted for the same reasons stated above in' response to that t
contention.
Paragraph (b) contends that the reliability needs for the VACAR region are overestimated.
This allegation clearly attempts to raise the question of the need for power from the Harris plant, and thus constitutes an impermissible challenge to 10 C.F.R.
S 51.53(c). See generally Applicants' l
l Response to Eddleman, 5 II.B.
Thus, the entire Contention 78 should be disallowed.
In Contention 79, CHANGE /ELP asserts that Applicants' estimate of the costs of operating the Harris plant are incorrect because Applicants have not properly taken into l )
account the costs of (a) psychiatric care, (b) health costs for effects due to mining, (c) regulatory costs of federal and state governments, and (d) cost of repairs of Applicants' reliance on an unreliable source of energy.
Petitioner provides absolutely no bases with the requisite specificity for any of the allegations with respect to an analysis of the costs of operating the Harris plant.
Nor has it been suggested how such costs, were they to be incurred, could tip the cost-benefit balance struck at the construction permit stage and by rule presumptively established in favor of operating the Harris Plant.
See Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Section II.B and Contentions 15 and 22.
3.
Psychological Stress (Contentions 39, 40)
Both Contentions 39 and 40 raise the issue of psychologi-cal stress on the community as a result of the operation of the plant.
For the reasons set forth in Applicants' Response to l
Eddleman at Contention 87, Applicants propose that the Board defer ruling on Contentions 39 and 40 until after the Commission provides additional guidance.
At that time, Appli-cants would respond to these contentions in light of the Commission's views.
' l l
'o C.
Other Environmental Issues 1.
Surface Water Monitoring (Contentions 65-67)
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contentions 65, 66 and 67 challenge the adequacy of Applicants' preoperational surface water monitoring program with regard to frequency of sampling intervals to assure statistical reliability; failure to use EPA biomonitoring techniques (which Petitioner claims would provide a better baseline comparison for chemical and radiological health effects); and failure to include routine sampling of fish for radioactivity in the ecological parameter program.
Petition at 21-22.
The surface water monitoring program is discussed in the ER at section 6.1.
Each month samples are collected from at least six stream stations and two Cape Fear River stations, one above Buckhorn Creek and one below, for purposes of laboratory analyses of the chemical makeup of the water.
See ER 5 6.1.1.1.
In addition, baseline biological surveys are being carried out, including quarterly sampling of fish, benthos and plankton at several stream and river stations.
ER S 6.1.1.2.
CHANGE /ELP provides no basis with required specificity in support of the assertion that the water quality monitoring program is inadequate to assure appropriate statistical reliability. W a
Similarly, there is no basis provided as to why Applicants' surface water monitoring program should be consid-cred inadequate because "it does not utilize biomonitoring techniques favored by EPA."
It is not clear to Applicants what biomonitoring techniques are being suggested by CHANGE /ELP.
Field biomonitoring has been carried out by Applicants for ten ysars.
ER 6 6.1.1.2 and ER references 6.1.1-9, 10, 11.
If Petitioner is referring to bioassay techniques, such a reference is misplaced in a preoperational monitoring program.
A reliance on bioassay methods is appropriate for detecting and analyzing toxic substances with respect to the impact of such substances on aquatic organisms.
Such techniques are not called for where, as in the environs of the Harris Plant site, acute or chronic concentrations of toxic substances have not been detected.
The purpose of surface water monitoring programs is not directed to detection of radioactivity.
Thus, as suggested in Contention 67, fish are not analyzed for radioactivity as part of this program.
However, fish are analyzed for radioactivity as part of both the ;>reoperational and operational radiological monitoring programs.
See ER S 6.1.5.
Contentions 65 and 66 lack bases with requisite spec-ificity and must be rejected.
Contention 67 is misplaced and does not present an issue in controversy. i
'a
'o 2.
Radiological Monitoring (Contentions 69-71)
Contentions 69 and 70 find fault with Applicants' preoper-ational radiological monitoring program.
Contention 69 alleges that radiological monitoring is not conducted "sufficiently frequently to assure adequate statistical reliability of the data generated."
Contention 70 states that the program is inadequate "in that it fails to specify where the monitoring is to take place."
Petition at 22.
Applicants' preoperational environmental radioactivity monitoring program is summarized in Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Section II.C.1.
The program is described in detail in sections 6.4 and 6.5 of the Revised Final Environmental i
Statement (Related to Construction of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2,
3 and 4) (March, 1974).
The informa-tion found lacking by Petitioner in Contention 70 is found at Table 6.1 of the Revised Final Environmental Statement.
The number of monitoring sites and frequency of monitoring at those sites were matters in controversy at the construction permit proceeding.
See 7 N.R.C.
at 122.
The Board there specifically found that Applicants' radiological surveillance program "is adequate from the standpoint of the number of sampling loca-tions and frequency of sampling."
Id. at 123-24.
The preoper-ational radiological monitoring program discussed in the ER at,
section 6.1.5.1 has been established in accordance with appropriate NRC regulatory guidance.
The program was evaluated by the NRC Staff at the construction permit stage and found to be adequate.
Petitioner fails to address the program established in the ER and to indicate specifically which sampling points or sampling frequencies they find inadequate.
No basis is provided for the alleged deficiencies in the program.
As such, contentions 69 and 70 are not allowable contentions.
Contention 71 states that the " radiological monitoring program is inadequate because the list of direct radiation sampling stations is misleading, or if not misleading, it reflects an inadequate monitoring program for direct radiation and airborne particulates and radioiodine."
Petition at 22.
Applicants concede that Table 6.1.5-1 of the ER may be mislead-ing in that it does not repeat the sampling and collection frequency for each entry of a sample point in the table.
Table 6.1.5-1 should be read to indicate continuous sampling for each airborne particulate and radiciodine sample point and for each direct radiation sample point.
The rationale for sampling i
locations is discussed in the ER at section 6.1.5.2.1.
The location of sampling points is designed to ensure reliable data notwithstanding wind patterns.
With this clarification -
provided in interpreting Table 6.1.5-1, Applicants suggest that the concern presented by Petitioner in Contention 71 is moot.
3.
Ingestion Pathway Analysis (Contentions 56-59)
Proposed Contentions 56, 57, 58 and 59 each allege an inadequacy in the internal exposure pathway analysis contained in Applicants' ER.
See ER S 5.2.1.
Applicants' internal exposure pathway analysis for man is based on the conservative NRC model contained in Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I," October, 1977.
The analysis also relies on site specific land use and population data, certain site specific environmental factors and plant unique information related to effluent discharges.
Also, generic usage factors (food consumption and inhalation rates) and dose calculation models are utilized.
As the Board recognized in the construc-tion permit proceeding, based on the specific site and envi-rons, Applicants concentrate on those pathways which have been found to be the most critical to and most sensitive for man, such as the air-vegetation-milk-man pathway, the air-man pathway, and the water-aquatic food-man pathway.
See 7 N.R.C.
at 124.
The following contentions provide no basis whatsoever _ _ _.
for challenging this tethodology, of which the Licensing Boerd approved.
Id.
Lacking any basis, all four of these conten-tions should be rejected.
Proposed Contention 56 alleges that Applicants' internal exposure pathway analysis is inadequate because it fails to consider the effect of ingestion of fish caught by recreational fishers in the reservoir or nearby sections of the Cape Fear River.
Petition at 20.
(CHANGE /ELP acknowledge that commer-cial fishing in the area is negligible.
Id.)
Proposed Contention 56 does not state a basis for its allegation, or discuss the relevant portions of the Shearon Harris ER.
Specifically, CHANGE /ELP does not address Applicants' state-ments in the ER that " recreational use of the Main Reservoir can result in internal exposures through the aquatic food chain," and that "to calculate the radiological impact of liquid effluents from the normal operation of SHNPP, it has been assumed that the maximum exposed individual catches and consumes all of his fish from the reservoir."
ER SS 5.2.1.2.1 and 5.2.2.1.3.
Neither does CHANGE /ELP refer to Applicants' discussion of dose rates, see ER 9 5.2.4, the ER table showing dose rates to fish, see ER Table 5.2.3-1, or the table specify-ing the doses received by man from fish, see ER Table 5.2.4-1.
Thus, the supposition for Contention 56 is totally incorrect. I
t In addition, the ER states that the aquatic food chains will be monitored during preoperational and operational stages in order to accurately assess the actual radiological impact of liquid effluents from Shearon Harris and to verify the accuracy of preoperational estimates.
See ER $$ 5.2.1.2.1 and 6.1.5.2.1(5).
CHANGE /ELP ignores this fact, also.
In summary, CHANGE /ELP Contention 56 fails because of its complete lack of basis, particularly in view of the contention's inconsistency with facts stated in the ER.
Proposed Contentions 57 and 58 are virtually identical.
Both contentions assert that Applicants' internal exposure pathway analysis is inadequate because it fails to consider the pathway air-tobacco smoking-man.
Petition at 20-21.
Proposed Contention 57 refers to tobacco grown near the plant.
Proposed Contention 58 refers to tobacco processed in factories "near the plant, specifically those in Durham (approximately 25 miles distant)."
Id. at 21.
These proposed contentions are not supported by any basis, and therefore are unacceptable under the criteria of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b).
The lack of basis in Contentions 57 and 58 is particularly serious in view of Applicants' discussion in the ER of the land uses in the vicinity of the plant -- within 5 miles, most of the land is wooded, although some dairy farms and residential vegetable gardens exist -- and the fact that these pathways are analyzed.
See ER 6 5.2.1.2.1.
Also, CHANGE /ELP does not respond in its contention to the ER discussion of-land use in the 50-mile radius of the plant, including tobacco growth.
ER SS 5.2.1.2.1 and 2.3.3.
But as the Licensing Board stated during the construction permit proceeding, the most sensitive pathways are chosen by Applicants for analysis.
7 N.R.C.
at 122-24.
These pathways depend in part on land use and conse-quent ingestion of contaminated foods.
See ER S 5.2.4.4.
Moreover, radiological estimates are calculated conservatively, using site-specific data.
Id.
CHANGE has not challenged any of the methods or facts on which Applicants rely in their internal exposure pathway analysis.
Nor has Petitioner offered any rationale in support of its criticism of Applicants' internal exposure pathway analysis.
Consequently, proposed Contentions 57 and 58 are unacceptable.
I Contention 59 asserts that Applicants' internal exposure pathway analysis is inadequate because it does not consider the pathway, food processing plant-man, referencing a chicken plant r
in Durham and an animal feed plant in Raleigh.
Petition at 21.
Applicants do not disagree with this assertion, but object to l
l the admission of the contention which is supported by no basis whatsoever.
As previously stated, utilizing established,
i l
guidelines and site specific information, Applicants conservatively estimate internal exposures to man from the ingestion of contaminated foods, including meat.
See ER
$ 5.2.4.4.
Moreover, site-specific data on land use and population estimates provided in Section 2.1.3 of the ER were considered in calculating food production rates and distribu-tion.
CHANGE /ELP offers no rationale why these methods are unacceptable.
Proposed Contention 59 should therefore be rejected.
4.
Mixing and Dispersion Models (Contentions 53, 60)
Contentione 53 and 60 both allege that the transport model for liquid radioactivity is inadequate because 80 percent mixing is assumed.
CHANGE /ELP asserts that potential exposure to persons swimming in the discharge area may be significantly i
higher than doses based on 80 percent mixing.
Petition at 20-21.
(
System radioactive release requirerents are discussed in l
the ER at section 3.5.2.1.2.
The transport model for dilution of liquid radioactive waste is described in the ER at section 5.2.2.1.1.
Liquid radioactive wastes are diluted by the cooling tower blowdown flow prior to being released to the main reservoir.
Thereafter, the radioactivity is assumed l
t i
! 1
\\
l L
conservatively to mix in 80 percent of the reservoir volume.
(The NRC Staff used a model which assumed 100 percent mixing in calculating exposures in the reservoir.
See Revised Final Environmental Statement at S-5.5.1.)
The resultant radioac-tivity concentration set forth in the ER is calculated using NRC approved models provided in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.113.
As described in the FSAR at section 5.1.2, the discharge point in the Main Reservoir will be over forty feet below the surface of the water at approximately one mile north of the Main Dam.
Radiation monitoring equipment will automatically terminate liquid waste discharge if radiation levels exceed a predeter-mined set point.
See FSAR S 11.2.
Petitioner simply asserts that the 80 percent mixing assumption is deficient.
In fact, the 80 percent mixing assumption is conservative.
A conservative estimate of radioactive liquid effluent concentrations can be calculated using a 100 percent mixing model as used by the NRC Staff.
See NRC Regulatory Guide 1.113 at 1.113-26.
CHANGE /ELP provides no basis with the requisite specificity for the allegation that the 80 percent mixing assumption using an NRC approved model is inadequate.
Petitioner also failed to provide any basis for the assumption that an individual would be swimming forty feet l
below the surface of the water near the discharge of the liquid,
waste processing system to be exposed to concentrated effluent discharges.
Any swimming that might occur in the reservoir would much more likely occur near the shoreline.
The NRC Staff calculated that the maximum annual dose to a person swimming and boating in the Harris Plant reservoir for 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br />, after thirty years' operation of four units with maximum concen-tration of radioactive effluents, would be 0.005 mrem / year (whole body).
Revised Final Environmental Statement, supra, at Table 5.5.
CHANGE /ELP has failed to provide any basis with requisite specificity for the allegation that the transport models used by Applicants to determine radioactivity concentrations in the reservoir are inadequate.
5.
Operational Phase Sampling Plan and Tobacco (Contention 68)
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 68 alleges that Applicants' operational phase sampling plan is inadequate because it fails to consider the " air-tobacco smoking-man transport pathway".
Petition at 21.
Applicants' operational phase sampling program is dis-cussed at section 6.1.5.2 of the ER.
As discussed in the ER, food products are sampled to provide data on ingestion of radionuclides near the end of the air-vegetation-man pathway.
1 The most sensitive sample media was determined to be broad leaf plants whose leaves constitute the consumed product.
Three sampling points are family gardens selected on the basis of proximity to the Harris Plant, reliability of the gardens' existence and representation of existing residents.
A control location was selected in Pittsboro, North Carolina, approxi-mately twelve miles from the Plant.
Comparison of these data points provides the most sensitive evaluations of the air-food crop-man transport pathway.
See ER S 6.1.5.2.l(b)(6).
Petitioner fails to provide any basis with requisite specificity for considering the air-tobacco smoking-man transport pathway.
The proposed contention fails to address the fact that tobacco absorbs so much natural radioactivity that it masks out most radioactivity from external sources, even radioactivity from weapons testing fallout.
CHANGE /ELP has also failed to address the fact that while broad leafy vegetables in gardens are immediately consumed, tobacco is aged for periods of up to several years prior to consumption (allowing greater time for decay of any radioactive isotopes).
Thus, Petitioner has failed to provide any basis for sampling tobacco when the sampling program being carried out is designed to provide the most sensitive evaluation of an ingestion pathway involving consumed vegetation...
Contention 68 must be rejected as inadequate in its basis and specificity.
See also Applicants' Response to Contentions 57 and 58, supra.
6.
Steam Generator Tube Rupture (Contention 74)
At Contention 74 CHANGE /ELP asserts that the probability of occurrence of steam generator tube rupture is incorrectly categorized as " minimal" in the ER at section 7.1.8.3.
Petitioners cite the steam generator tube rupture at the Rochester Gas & Electric Company's Ginna Plant as the basis for their allegation.
Petition at 22.
Petitioner simply provides no nexus between the steam generator tube rupture that occurred at Ginna and the operation of the Harris Plant.
CHANGE /ELP has not addressed the exten-sive testing and favorable operating experience, described in the FSAR, with Inconel-600 -- the steam generator tubing material for the Harris Plant.
See FSAR S 5.4.2.1.3.
Petitioner has not provided any basis for the presumption that i
the rupture of a steam generator tube at the Ginna Plant portends the probability of a similar rupture at the Harris l
Plant.
The differences in the steam generator design, in the Inconel tubing, in the initial water chemistry control pro-grams, in the manner of operation and, in particular, in the i
l 3
/
discovery of foreign objects in the secondary side of the Ginna steam generator (which suffered the tube rupture) demonstrate that no such nexus exists.
It appears that a steam generator downcomer flow resistance plate, which had been cut in pieces and reportedly removed during a steam generator modification to Ginna steam generators in 1975, had not been completely removed.
It is generally believed that foreign objects inadvertently left in the steam generator' contributed to the tube degradation and rupture at the Ginna Plant.
See U.S.
N.R.C.,
Report on the January 25, 1982-Steam Generator Tube Rupture at R.E.
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (NUREG-0909) (April 1982), at 1-23.
CHANGE /ELP has not presented any nexus between the inadvertent failure to remove foreign cbjects during steam generator maintenance at Ginna and operation of the steam generators at the Harris Plant.
Thuss Petitioner has provided no basis for challenging the statement in the ER that "the probability for catastrophic failure of a steam generator tube is considered minimum."
ER $ 7.1.8.3.3.
Contention 74 must be rejected as lacking basis.
7.
Algal Blooms (Contention 55)
Contention 55 states that "the predicted effect of algal blooms is inadequately considered because it fails to assess i f
4
the cumulative, spreading effects of algal blooms and algal
' greenhouse' effects."
Petition at 20.
At ER section 5.1.3.1 the potential for algae " bloom" conditions is discussed.
Since the mixing zone will only encompass about 5 percent of the reservoir in winter and 2 percent in summer, the overall impact and any long-term effects of algae blooms will be minimal.
Petitioner has failed to address this discussion in the ER and has failed to provide any basis for the assertion that algae blooms could spread.
Furthermore, CHANGE /ELP has failed to provide any allegation or basis for any negative effects of algae blooms and any basis for the presumed " greenhouse" effects.
In fact, the reservoir does not provide the necessary environment for the greenhouse effect because of the lack of a significant quantity of necessary nutrients.
Furthermore, by eliminating the need for introduction of nutrient rich Cape Fear River water into the Harris Plant reservoir (as a result of the cancellation of Units 3 and 4), the potential for algae blooms is further reduced.
See Applicants' Response to the " Final Environmental Report Review Questions," submitted by letter from M.
A.
McDuffie to H.
R. Denton, dated June 3, 1982.
Having provided no basis or even minimal specificity with
]
regard to allegations concerning algae blooms, the contention is not allowable. -
a d
8.
Accident Releases to the Atmosphere (Contention 76)
Contention 76 finds fault with the ER Chapter 7 discussion of the environmental effects of accidents.
It is alleged that the analyses fail to consider " secondary releases to the outside atmosphere."
Petition at 23.
CHANGE /ELP has simply misread the ER.
The asexmptions for the various classes of accidents analyzed include significant releases of radioactivity to the atmosphere.
Based on these assumptions, offsite doses at the exclusion area boundary and total population doses are calculated.
For example, in discussing radiological effects of the rupture of a gas decay tank (ER 5 7.1.6.4), a complete rupture is assumed with radioactivity released from the tank during the accident and vented directly to the environment via the plant vent.
One hundred percent of the average tank inventory is assumed to be released.
In the loss-of-coolant accident (large pipe break)
(ER S 7.1.11.3), it is assumed that five percent of the halogens and all of the noble gases are leaked from contain-ment.
Thus, proposed Contention 76 fails to present an issue in controversy since the premise for the contention is simply incorrect. l
9.
Backfluch Storage (Contention 54)
Contention 54 asserts that the provision for treating
" filter backflush is inadequate because only one tank is available for backflush storage."
Petition at 20.
The premise for this contention is also simply inaccurate.
As discussed in ER section 3.5.2.2.1, equipment for handling filter backflush sludge includes eight backflush transfer tanks (800 gal /each),
one backflush storage tank (2000 gal), one filter particulate concentrate tank (1,000 gal) and two backflush storage tank filters.
The particulate matter suspended in a small amount of backflush water is simply routed through the backflush storage system prior to being transferred to the solidification system.
The relatively small volume of filter backflush generated each year (6,000 cubic feet / year or 45,000 gal / year) can be easily handled with the interconnected tanks in the present system.
Contention 54 fails to state an issue about which there could be any controversy.
10.
Alternative Supply of Drinking Water (Contention 18)
Contention 18 asserts that the operating licenses should not be issued because no provision has been made for alterna-tive sources of drinking water for towns downstream from the plant or in areas likely to be contaminated by airborne.
releases of radioactivity.
CHANGE /ELP baldly states that releases of contaminated water are " credible events."
Petition at 8.
Again there is no basis or specificity provided for the premise for this contention.
The nearest municipal water supply deriving water from the Cape Fear River is located at Lillington, North Carolina, some twelve miles downstream.
ER S 5.2.1.2.1.
The NRC Staff calculated that the maximum total body dose to an individual consuming 2 liters of water per day during the seven months of the year that water is expected to be released from the Harris Plant reservoir to the Cape Fear River would amount to 0.04 mrem /yr.
This is based on the i
concentrations in the reservoir from thirty years' operation of four units.
Revised Final Environmental Statement, supra, 5 5.5.1.
Petitioner does not address FSAR section 11.2.1.6, which describes the provisions to prevent uncontrolled releases i
of radioactive effluents to the Harris Plant reservoir.
Petitioner has not addressed ER Chapter 7 which summarizes the radiological impacts from postulated accidents.
The analysis of credible accidents indicates that effluent radioactivity releases would not result in contamination of water supplies that would warrant considering alternative drinking water supplies for Lillington or any other community in the vicinity I
of the Harris Plant. l I
l
Contention 18 must be rejected for lack of basis with the requisite specificity.
D.
Health Effects (Contentions 1, 19, 61, 72, 73)
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 1 is a radiological health offects contention relating both to normal operation and fuel cycle effects.
Applicants object to Contention 1 insofar as it relates to normal operation for the reasons articulated in our response to KUDZU's first contention, a contention that is remarkably similar to CHANGE /ELP Contention 1.
CHANGE /ELP Contention 1 is even more lacking in specificity and basis than Kudzu Contention 1.
Insofar as CHANGE /ELP Contention 1 deals with fuel cycle health effects, the contention is premature for the reasons explained in Applicants' Response to Eddleman Contention 8.
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 19 states only that the
" Environmental Report is inadequate in that it fails to adequately consider the health effects of tritium."
Petition at 8.
Applicants object to the admission of this contention, which is unsupported by any basis whatsoever.
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 61 is a radiation health effects contention relating to normal plant operation.
Appli-cants object to the lack of basis provided to support the contention.
Contention 61 refers ER section 5.2.3, which summarizes doses to biota other than man associated with the Main Reservoir and shoreline environment adjacent to the Shearon Harris plant from normal levels of radiation released from SHNPP.
Petitioner argues that these dose estimates are inadequate "in that they only consider short-term effects and fail to consider long-term genetic effects."
Petition at 21.
Section 5.2.3 of Applicants' ER conforms to the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 4.2, which states that an envi-ronmental report should provide estimates of dose rates (but need not include the health effects of these dose rates) to biota other than man from liquid effluents.
Applicants have, nevertheless, discussed health effects of radioactivity on biota other than man in section 5.2.3.
CHANGE /ELP contends that this discussion is insufficient, because it fails to address "long-term genetic effects."
Id.
It is unclear what CHANGE /ELP means by this phrase since, for example, Applicants refer to one study of more than 130 generations of Chironomid larvae which showed no decrease in abundance although a slightly increased number of chromosome aberrations when the larvae were irradiated at the rate of about 230 to 240 rad / year.
ER at 5.2.3-1.
In contrast,.the maximum dose of 74.2 mrad / year is estimated for biota other than men (heron) associated tith the SHNPP main reservoir and shoreline environment.
Id. at Table 5.2.3-1.
Other biota receive from 1.19 to 14.1 mrad / year.
Id.
Thus CHANGE fails to address information contained in the ER.
Furthermore, while CHANGE refers to "significant information" concerning long-term genetic effects on biota other than man from normal levels of radioactive releases from SENPP, id.,
no specific references are provided.
Consequently, Contention 61 utterly fails to meet the basis requirement of 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(b).
CHANGE proposed Contention 72 begins by referring to the radiological impact of routine operation of SENPP.
Petition at 22.
It is clear, however, that this contention challenges Applicants' consideration of radon produced during the uranium fuel cycle, including the health effects of radon.
At this juncture, Applicants believe it would be premature for the Board to admit uranium fuel cycle contentions.
See Applicants' Response to Eddleman Contentions 8 and 61A.
Proposed Contention 73 has two subsections.
Proposed Contention 73(a) also begins by referring to inadequacies in the routine operation of Shearon Harris.
In fact, however, by challenging Applicants' ER for not adequately considering the
" radiation and other health effects of reprocessing the fuel used at the plant," Petition at 22, CHANGE /ELP is proffering a
. K
uranium fuel cycle contention.
For the reasons articulated in Applicants' Response to Eddleman Contentions 8 and 61A, this contention is' premature.
Proposed Contention 73(b) challenges Applicants' ER for failing to consider "the radiation and other health effects likely to result from the routine military use of plutonium and/or other materials extracted from the fuel used at the plant."
CHANGE /ELP has provided no basis for asserting that
" plutonium and/or other materials extracted from the fuel used at the plant" will be subject to routine military use."
Petition at 22.
In fact, the public record on this issue contradicts this assumption in proposed CHANGE /ELP Contention 73(b).
Current United States policy does not favor the use of spent fuel for nuclear weapons.
On March 30, 1982, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the NRC Authorization
- Bill, H.R. 2330, prohibiting the transfer, use or reprocessing of special nuclear material from commercial nuclear power plants for weapons purposes.
See 128 Cong. Rec. S2959-S2966, S2978-S2981 (March 30, 1982).
During the Senate debates on this amendment, Senator Hart, the leading sponsor and floor manager of the measure, made clear that the amendment prohibit-ing the military use of spent fuel "would not in any way _ _ _
l l
l 1
interfere with this administration's plans to expand this Nation's nuclear weapons arsenal," if that is the desired policy.
Rather, other sources besides commercial spent reactor fuel would be supplying that need.
128 Cong. Rec. S2959 (March 30, 1982) (statement of Senator Simpson).
Furthermore, no present reliance is being placed by the Federal Government on spent fuel as a source of materials for weapons production.
See 128 Cong. Rec. S2960 (March 30, 1982) (letter from Frank C.
Carlucci, Deputy Secretary of Defense to the Honorable John G.
Tower, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, March 29, 1982);
id. at S2961 (statements of Senators Simpson and Warner).
In contrast to the public record on this issue, CHANGE /ELP offers no substantiation whatsoever for its assumption that spent fuel will be put to military use.
Certainly, such use is not contemplated by NRC which, in its table of environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, assumes that spent fuel will be
__ied at a long-term facility or that, while the uranium might be extracted and recycled, the plutonium will be buried.
See 10 C.F.R.
S 51.20(e), Table S-3, n.1; see also 45 Fed. Reg. 15154, 15157 (1981) (proposed Narrative Explanation of Table S-3, Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data).
Because the proposed federal action at issue -- issuance of an operating license for Shearon Harris -- does not include the mere ___
contemplation, much less a proposal, to use the waste from the facility for military purposes, NEPA does not require that this speculative impact be analyzed.
See Kleppe v.
Sierra Club, 427 U.S.
390 (1976); Aberdeen & Rockfish R.
R.
Co.
v.
Students Challenging Regulatory Acency Procedures, 422 U.S. 289 (1975).
Consequently, CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 73(b) should be rejected.
E.
Waste Storage and Transportation 1.
Spent Fuel Transportation (Contentions 9, 10, 77)
Contention 9 asserts that Applicants' ER is inadequate because it does not provide a full description and analysis of the environmental effects of the transportation of spent fuel to Shearon Harris from other CP&L Plants.
Petition at 6.
Contention 10 alleges that Applicants have not demonstrated their ability to safely transport and store irradiated fuel assemblies from their other plants.
Further, CHANGE /ELP alleges that Applicants have failed to adequately assure that they or the responsible federal agencies have properly assessed the likelihood and consequences of accidents, human error, or malevolence during transport.
Petition at 6.
Contention 77 asserts that section 7.2 of the ER is inadequate, "in that the transportation studies on which it is based underectimate by _
far the environmental risk to the general public."
This is alleged to be "even more true in light of Applicants' stated plan to ship fuel from Brunswick to the SHNPP."
Petition at 23.
The spent fuel transportation issues that are properly before the Board are discussed in Applicants' Response to Eddleman at section II.E.
For reasons discussed in detail there, the transportation of spent fuel from Robinson Unit 2 and Brunswick Units 1 and 2 to the Harris Plant is outside the scope of the operating license proceeding.
Thus the issues raised in Contentions 9 and 10 are not cognizable.
Properly at issue are the environmental impacts associated with the storage of spent fuel (including the spent fuel transported from Robinson and Brunswick) at the Harris Plant and transportatien of spent fuel from the Harris Plant.
However, these impacts have been established generically by Commission rule for use in all NRC licensing proceedings.
The values in Table S-4 to 10 C.F.R.
S 51.20 encompass the impacts from the storage and the transportation of all spent fuel from the Harris Plant.
In fact, since Table S-4 sumarises the environmental impacts of spent fuel transportation to and from one light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor, the values in Table S-4 overstate the environmental impacts of the..
transportation cf Robinson and Brunswick spent fuel from the Harris Plant after storage.
Even if we assumed that all spent l
fuel from Brunswick and Robinson (3 units) was temporarily stored at the Harris Plant and then transported from Harris (a highly improbable scenario), then the total environmental impact would still be something less than the values in Table S-4 multiplied by a factor of three.
This provides an absolute upper bound.
Actual impacts will be considerably less since the amount of fuel that can be shipped to Harris is limited by the capacity of the spent fuel pools.
As discussed in Applicants' Response to Eddleman at section II.E, both Applicants and responsi.ble federal agencies l
(NRC and DOT) have provided for the public health and safety relating to storage and transportation of spent fuel.
t CHANGE /ELP has failed to provide even one specific suggestion regarding why the plans as set forth in the FSAR and ER with respect to spent fuel storage, and in the regulations of the NRC and DOT with respect to transportation, are not adequate to protect the public health and safety and the environment.
In fact, CP&L's successful transportation by rail of 44 shipments of spent fuel from Robinson to Brunswick (consisting of over 300 fuel assemblies) contradict the unsupported assertions in Contention 10.
In light of the background discussed above, _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Petitioner provides no basis for the assertion in Contention 77 that transportation studies on which section 7.2 of the ER is based " underestimate by far the environmental risk to the general public."
For the reasons set forth above and in Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Section II.E, CHANGE /ELP Contentions 9, 10 ano should be rejected.
2.
Long-term Spent Fuel Storage (Contention 11)
Contention 11 states that " Applicants have made no provision for the safe storage of spent fuel at Shearon Harris after expiration of the license for the facility nor have they demonstrated their ability to safely store such fuel for a term adequate to assure that it will not endanger public health and safety.
Petition at 6.
In the FSAR at section 9.1, Applicants describe the plans for storage of spent fuel at the Harris Plant.
CHANGE /ELP fails to provide any basis with specificity for the contention that Applicants have failed to demonstrate their ability to safely store spent fuel.
Petitioners' assertion that Applicants have made no provision for safe storage of spent fuel after expiration of the license for the facility amounts to an impermissible collateral attack on the " Waste Confidence" rulemaking.
See 44.
'o Fed. Reg. 45362 (1979).
The Commission has held that such contentions are not cognizable in individual licensing pro-ceedings.
See Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Contentions 68 and 69.
Contention 11 should therefore be rejected.
F.
Decommissioning (Contentions 13, 62-64)
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 13 asserts that Applicants have failed to assure the availability of adequate funding to safely decommission the Harris Plant.
As noted in response to Eddleman proposed Contention 135, the issue of funding for decommissioning has been explicitly excluded from consideration in NRC licensing proceedings.
See Applicants' Response to Eddleman, section II.F.
Therefore, proposed Contention 13 must be rejected as an impermissible attack upon the Commission's regulations.
Proposed Contentions 62 and 63 claim that Apolicants' analysis of the future decommissioning of the Harris Plant is inadequete due to unrealistic cost estimates and in failing to provide details describing how the decommissioning will be carried out.
Applicants submit that these contentions should not be admitted in that they seek to raise issues which are about to become the subject of generic rulemaking.
See Appli-cants' Response to Eddleman, section II.F.
Additionally, -..
~ - - _ _ _ _ _
Petitioner's assertion that Applicants' cost estimates are i
unrealistic is not supported by any specific facts -- the l
l reference to the projected costs for the clean-up of the TMI-2 accident is an inappropriate-comparison to attempt to raise here.
Further, CHANGE /ELP has made no showing that Applicants must, at this time, provide a detailed description of the method by which decommissioning will be accomplished.
- Indeed, there are no such requirements and any attempt to set forth such procedures would be premature in light of the forthcoming generic rulemaking.
See Applicants' Response to CCNC Contention 20.
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 64 would find Applicants' decommissioning safety analysis (Table 5.8.3-1 of the Environmental Report) inadequate in underestimating the number of serious lost-time injuries.
Applicants object to the admission of this contention as lacking sufficient basis.
CHANGE /ELP here claims that more lost-time injuries have occurred during construction than were projected, but provides no factual support for this allegation.
Further, even if this allegation were true, the number of lost-time injuries during construction is not sufficiently germane to decommissioning to provide a basis for Contention 64....
G.
Construction Deficiencies / Quality Assurance (Contention 16)
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 16 asserts that there are questionable practices employed in welding quality control, and that employees are discouraged from reporting such practices.
As we noted in response to Mr. Eddleman's Contentions 41 and 65, CP&L's quality assurance and quality control programs for the design and construction of the Harris Plant were reviewed and approved with the issuance of the construction permits.
The adequacy of those programs is not at issue in an operating license proceeding.
Applicants' compliance with those pro-grams, including ASME Code welding requirements, has been the subject of repeated audit, inspection and surveillance by NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
It is not contended that Applicants have failed to correct any deficiencies uncovered through.those progrums.
There is no elaboration with respect to the structures, systems, or components at issue or the welding quality control practices which CHANGE /ELP considers to be " questionable" in some undefined manner.
Neither is there an allegation that any structure, system or component has been defectively constructed or assembled.
I !
l I
[
t In sum, the proposed contention is fatally vague and provides no basis for a Licensing Board inquiry into plant construction.
H.
Risk Assessment / Accident Analysis (Contentions 2, 5)
Petitioner's proposed Contentions 2 and 5 contend that Applicants' accident analyses for plant design purposes are inadequate in failing to consider beyond design basis acci-dents.
Both contentions are based upon an assertion that Applicants' analyses are premised upon the findings of WASH-1400, which CHANGE /ELP alleges has been shown to be unacceptable for licensing purposes.
Applicants have set forth, in their response to Eddleman proposed Contentions 34, 93, 119 and 125, the standards under which beyond design basis accidents may be considered.
See Applicants' Response to Eddleman, 5 II.F.
In its proposed Contentions 2 and 5, CHANGE /ELP has made no showing that the Harris Plant would present risks beyond those associated with other nuclear power plants, nor has Petitioner attempted to postulate a specific accident scenario as a probable occurrence for the Harris Plant.
Applicants contend that Petitioner's attempt to litigate the broad range of beyond design basis accidents constitutes a challenge to the Commission's design.. _.
criteria and regulatory requirements established to assure protection of the public health and safety and therefore should not be allowed.
Further, to the extent that CHANGE /ELP asserts that the reference to WASH-1400 provides a basis for its proposed Contentions 2 and 5, Applicants contend that no such basis has been shown.
Petitioner generally claims that WASH-1400 is relied upon by Applicants, but provide no support for this position -- and, indeed, as we noted in response to Eddleman proposed Contention 125, there is no support for this state-ment.
See Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Contention 125.
I.
Plant Design 1.
Radiological Monitoring (Contentions 34, 35)
Proposed Contention 34 asserts that the calibration and inspection for continuous air monitors and portable air samplers is inadequate because they are to be " checked" only annually.
Petition at 13.
The contention provides no relevant explanation, with specificity and basis, as to why these calibration / inspection frequencies migh* ae considered to be inadequate.
2 The problems at Three Mile Island in 1979 are not particu-larly relevant to the question of whether Applicants' calibra-tion and inspection program for the Harris plant is adequate.
i i
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 35 challenges Applicants' use of thermoluminescent dosimeters ("TLDs").
Petition at 13.
While Mr. Eddleman questioned the purported use of TLDs for emergency response decision-making (Eddleman Contention 1),
1 CHANGE /ELP apparently attacks the use of TLDs as inadequate to assure occupational safety.
No references or documentation are cited in support of the assertion that TLDs may be inaccurate by as much as plus or minus 30%, nor has a superior method been proposed.
Consequently, no basis is advanced for the conclu-sion that occupational safety will not be assured, and the contention should not be admitted.
2.
Systems Classification (Contention 24) 1 CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 24 asserts that the classification of structures, systems and components in FSAR 4
Table 3.2.1-1 is inadequate because of four stated reasons.
Petition at 11.
Part (a), while confusingly worded, appears to state that the classification of instrumentation as IE is inadequate.
If this is the case, Petitioner has misunderstood the cited FSAR table.
As the " Notes" to FSAR Table 3.2.1-1 state (at p.
3.2.1-42), Class IE is the highest quality classification and includes instrumentation required to actuate, maintain operation of, or detect failure of equipment c
' 4 I
needed to safely shut down, isolate, and maintain the reactor in a safe condition and prevent uncontrolled release of radioactivity from the plant.
The contention fails to explain any manner in which the classification of instrumentation is inadequate.
Part (b) complains that the waste processing building cooling system is incorrectly classified NSS (we assume the contention should read "NNS" -- non-nuclear safety).
The contention fails to identify any deficiency in the design of that system, however, and in questioning the classification displays a misunderstanding of the system's role.
Petitioner evidently believes that the building cooling system is relied upon to contain radioactivity.
This is mistaken, and the contention ignores the fact that the Gaseous Waste Processing System, which complies with General Design Criterion 60, is designed to prevent release of radioactivity into the Waste Processing Building.
See FSAR S 11.3.1.
The postulated failure of this system is analyzed in FSAR section 15.7.1.
Consequently, there is no basis set forth for this contention.
Parts (c) and (d) of proposed Contention 24 challenge the classification of elements of the spent fuel storage facility, contending generally that the materials used must be of the highest design and quality.
The refueling water purification............
pump and fuel pool liner, however, do not serve a safety function and petitioners have not identified one.
The safety function here (to contain fuel pool water) is performed by the concrete structure of the fuel pool.
Nevertheless, as explained in FSAR section 9.1.3.3, which Petitioner does not addrcos, the pool liners are designed and constructed to ASME Code III and are subject to the Quality Assurance criteria.
The contention advances no basis upon which to question the design and operation of the spent fuel storage facility.
Consequently, it should not be admitted for litigation.
3.
Failure Modes (Contentions 14, 23, 25, 26)
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 14, like Eddleman proposed Contention 7, cites NRC Staff member Demetrios Basdekas for the proposition that there is an inadequate accounting of control and safety system interactions.
Petition at 7, 8.
The contention is overly broad and without specificity and basis.
It does not identify any deficiencies in FSAR Chapter 7
(" Instrumentation and Controls"), the systems and the kinds of failures of concern, or any nexus between the Harris plant and the unidentified " unexpected occurrences" which may have occurred at other plants.
See Duke Power Comoany, et al.
(Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP 15 N.R.C.
(March 5, 1982), slip op. at 32 (Palmetto 29). l
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 23 challenges the design criteria for dams at nuclear power plants by asserting that 2
multiple failures should have been considered.~
Petition at 11.
A broader, but similar attack on the so-called " single failure criterion" is found in Eddleman proposed Contention 4.
Like that contention, CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 23 constitutes a challenge to Commission regulations in the form of the General Design Criteria ("GDC") in Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
The contention also appears not to recognize that under the definition of " single failure" in the GDC, multiple failures resulting from a single occurrence are considered to be a single failure.
See " Definitions and Explanations," Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
In addition, the contention ignores GDC-2
(" Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena"), which requires structures, systems and components important to safety to be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena, including appropriate combinations of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of the natural phenomena.
Consistent with this criterion, the Harris plant is designed to withstand, for 3
It should be noted, in this regard, that the main reservoir dam and auxiliary reservoir dam are seismic Category I, designed for downstream flooding.
FSAR S 2.4.4.1. -------
example, the effects of a loss-of-coolant accident coincident with the effects of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake.
See FSAR
$ 3.1.2.
In short, the proposed contention misreads the single failure criterion, ignores other accident analyses which combine natural phenomena with postulated accidents, and fails to assert any noncompliance with Commission requirements or any credible scenario for which the plant has not been designed.
Consequently, the contention lacks the requisite basis.
Proposed Contention 25 asserts that an aircraft hazard analysis is necessary for a complete safety analysis, because of the size and height of the cooling towers, and the existence of "several" airports just outside the 5-mile range and of a
" major" airport 20 miles away.
Petition at 11.
NRC Regulatory Guide 1.70, Rev.
3, at section 3.5.1.6, sets forth the condi-tions under which an aircraft hazard analysis should be required.
The location and traffic volume of airports are important criteria.
An aircraft hazard analysis is called for in the case of " Federal airways or airport approaches passing within 2 miles of the nuclear facility" and "[a]ll airports located within 5 miles of the site."
There are no such airways, approaches or airports in this case.
See FSAR S 3.5.1.6.
The Guide also calls for an analysis for "[a]ir-2 ports with projected operations greater than 500d movements per year located within 10 miles of the site and greater than 1000d outside 10 miles, where d is the distance in miles from the site."
The Shelba Airport (at Holly Springs, 6 miles away), the Luther Airport (at Apex, 8 miles away), and the Raleigh-Durham Airport (20 miles away) do not have sufficient operations to warrant an analysis under these criteria.
See FSAR 9 3.5.1.6.
CHANGE /ELP has advanced no new facts in this contention, and has not explained why the Staff's criteria might be inadequate, or what might justify deviating from the criteria in this case.
Consequently, the contention lacks basis and specificity and should not be admitted.
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 26 takes the position that the missile protection analysis (FSAR section 3.5) is inadequate because it fails to consider the effects of a missile attack by terrorist groups.
Petition at 11, 12.
This is a clear challenge to a Commission regulation -- 10 C.F.R.
S 50.13 -- which is prohibited by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758.
Section 50.13 provides that an applicant 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 against the l
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. l t
Thus, Contention 26 should be disallowed.
See Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-202 (ALAB-197R), 7 A.E.C. 825, 830 (1974).
4.
Reactor Vessel (Contentions 27, 28)
)
Reactor pressure vessels are the subject of nunerous NRC l
regulatory requirements.
- See, e.g.,
10 C.F.R. 9 50.55a(c)
(requirements of ASME codes); $ 50.55a(g) (inservice inspection t
requirements), Appendix G to Part 50 (fracture toughness requirements); Appendix H to Part 50 (reactor vessel material surveillance program requirements); Appendix A to Part 50 (General Design Criteria 14, 30, 31 and 32).
The Commission's confidence in its own regulations governing reactor pressure vessel integrity has been such that in order to warrant inquiry into vessel integrity in licensing proceedings, evidence must be directed to the existence of special considerations involv-ing a particular facility in issue.
The Commission empowered Licensing Boards, in their discretion, to exclude contentions I
or challenges which have no substantial or prima facie basis, l
or which merely amount to generalized attacks upon the stand-ards presently required by the regulations.
Consolidated 1
i Edison Company of New York (Indian Point Unit No. 2),
l CLI-72-29, 5 A.E.C.
20, 21 (1972). i
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 27 states that Applicants' reactor vessel integrity analysis is inadequate because annealing is an untried method whose exact results are unknown.
Petition at 12.
In fact, annealing is neither planned nor expected but, should it become advisable at some later time, there are no special design features which would prohibit the in-situ annealing of the vessel.
FSAR S 5.3.3.1.
Furthermore, there is no basis for the proposition, and none is cited, that the annealing of metal is an unknown process.
Petitioner also apparently asserts, in this contention, that the reactor vessel materials surveillance program would not be adequate to accommodate the annealing of the reactor vessel.
The material surveillance program is described in FSAR section 5.3.1.6.
This program is designed to comply w'th Appendix H to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, which states that "[u]nder this program, fracture toughness test data are obtained from material specimens withdrawn periodically from the reactor vessel."
Consequently, when Petitioner challenges the surveil-lance program they are generally attacking the Commission's standards without the requisite showing of special circum-stances.
Further, while there are admitted access problems associated with entering reactor vessels following power operations for surveillance, CHANGE /ELP ignores and fails to _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _.
challenge the steps taken by Applicants in design and manufacturing procedures to overcome these difficulties and to prepare for the tests required by the ASME Code.
See FSAR 5 5.3.3.7.
CHANGE /ELP has not identified any noncompliance with HRC requirementa, or set forth with any basis and spe-cificity any reason why additional or different testing approaches (e.g.,
from the outside) might be required.
The contention concludes with the blanket assertion that Applicants' analysis of the " embrittlement problem" is gen-erally inadequate.
CHANGE /ELP does not contend that Applicants fail to comply with the fracture toughness requirements of Appendix G to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
See F5AR $ 5.3.1.
In the absence of any elaboration of any inadequacy in Applicants' analysis, this allegation must be rejected for absence of basis and specificity.
Proposed Contention 28 questions whether the ultrasonic testing method proposed will be adequate to ensure that all cracks in the reactor vessel will be correctly and timely detected.
Petition at 12.
The ultrasonic tests will be performed pursuant to ASME Codes which are recognized by Commission regulation.
In addition, the proposed contention presents absolutely no rationale, either in theory or with factual basis, in support of its conclusion that tests will not _
l 1.,
i 3.
\\
be adequate.
Consequently, it.is whdlly lacking in
_f *
/
e specificity, and there is no basis, supplied whate., tier.
Contentions 27 and 28 appear'(ito be attacks In conclusion,
]*
on Commission regulations without the showing rpquired by 10
't C.F.R.
5 2.758, and also do not set forth bases with the requisite degree of specificity.
5.
Steam Generators (Contentions 29-33)
/
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 29 states that "[t]he sludge lancing technique is inadequate to ensure cleanup of
,s detrimental secondary sidg deposits in the steam generators."
~
Petition at 12.
That technique is identified as one which can be used to remove secondary side deposits if and when the need !
is indicated by the results of steam generator tube inspection.
6.
FSAR S 5.4.2.1.4.
The contention here fails to explain in any way why the technique might be inadequate, or why other methods sould not be satisfactory.
The contention therefore should not be admitted for litigation bed *ause it lacks any basis and even minimal specificity.
Proposed Contention 30 argues that the analysis of mechanical and flow-induced vibrati on is inadequate because it overlooks the tube fatigue phenomena that have occurred in similar Westinghouse steam generators in Sweden and at McGuire.
t s
~54-J' r
3
'J a.
Petition at/jl2., ' This contention was supplemented by CHANGE /ELP l <-
r
~
in its amended Petition of May 25, 1982.
First, there is no basis for s'tating that the analysis overlooks tube fatigue w!Senfapcertainingthecontributiontofatigueof phenomena, l
l j
~
induced vib'rgtlon is the stated purpose of the analysis.
See FSAR S 5.4.2'.5.3.
Second, the comparison of the Harris plant with the Ringhals and McGuire plants is not valid.4 While each of these plants has Westinghouse "Model D" steam genera-tors, there are variations of the Model D which are significant for the potential for vibration-induced wear.
The Harris plant has Model D-4 steam generators, while the McGuire plant has Model D-2 and D-3 steam generators, and the Ringhals plant in Sweden has Model D-3.
Whereas the D-2/D-3 steam generator design incorporates a bi-directional, split-flow feedwater entry,.the D-4 design employs an uni-directional, counter-flow feedwater entry.
Westinghouse and Applicants are continuing to evaluate, however, throuch studies and tests, the potential for i
vibration, induced fatigue in D-4 steam generators; and CHANGE /ELP,j in the amendment to Contention 30, has provided a basis with direct nexus to the Harris plant.
The Krsko Plant 4
Mr. Eddleman makes a similar comparison in his proposed Contentions 1,9, 112 and 114.
i
/ *
.d G
in Yugoslavia has Westinghouse Model D-4 steam generators, and apparently will be the subject of a Westinghouse proposed design change aimed at eliminating vibration.
Consequently, Applicants do not oppose the admission of amended Contention 20, and view its thrust to be that no proposed modifications have yet been presented for the Harris Plant.
Applicants do oppose as remote and speculative the last sentence of the amended contention as an environmental, cost-benefit issue.
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 31 alleges that the steam generator inservice testing program is inadequate to assure complete inspection of tube defects at safe levels ni worker radiation exposure.
Petition at 12, 13.
The contention, however, advances no specific deficiency in the program (e.g.,
there is no criticisu of eddy current testing with remote devices -- FSAR S 5.2.4.2.4.),
or basis upon which to question g
that Applicants will meet the "as low as reasonably achievable" objectives of Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
See FSAR Chapter 12 (" Radiation Protection").
Thus, the contention must fail for lack of basis and specificity.
The reference to experience at CP&L's Robinson plant is not relevant to a consideration of the adequacy of the Harris testing program, since the steam generator design and secondary chemical regimes are entirely different. __
)
Proposed Contention 32 asserts that maintenance exposure levels for Westinghouse steam generators have been underesti-mated because frequent repairs and possible replacement must be assumed to be normal maintenance.
Petition at 13.
Petitioners have provided no basis for the assumption that frequent repairs and possible replacement of the steam generators at the Harris plant should be assumed to be normal maintenance.
Further, it appears that CHANGE /ELP had not examined Applicants' estimates of direct exposures to plant personnel, set forth in ESAR section 12.4.2.
There it is indicated that exposure is estimated for both routine and special maintenance, including such infrequent but major efforts as steam generator tube plugging.
See FSAR SS 12.4.2.1 and Table 12.4.2-3.
This contention should not be admitted, then, because it lacks an adequate basis.
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 33 states that the cor-rosion rate analysis for steam generator tubing is inadequate because it ignores industry operating experience.
Experience at the Robinson and North Anna plants is cited.
Petition at 13.
Petitioner has not addressed the extensive testing and favorable operating experience, described in the FSAR, with Inconel-600,.the steam generator tubing material for the Harris plant.
See FSAR % 5.4.2.1.3.
The cited Robinson and North..
a.
Anna experience is not applicable here.
The Robinson plant uses phosphates for secondary side chemistry control; the North Anna plant used phosphates and subsequently converted to the "all volatile treatment" (AVT) method.
The Harris plant, on the other hand, will use AVT chemictry control from the start and should not experience the tube wall thinning and denting problems associated with the use of phosphates.
The FSAR discusses the testing of Inconel-600 material in the AVT environment, and operational experience with such systems.
See FSAR S 5.4.2.1.3.
Petitioner has failed to address this information in any way.
In short, Contention 33 sets forth no inadequacies in Applicants' FSAR and the cited experience at other plants has no nexus to the Harris plant.
The contention therefore lacks basis and should not be admitted.
6.
Valves (Contentions 42, 43)
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 42 takes issue with the scope of the safety and relief valve testing program being conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in response to the Staff's TMI-2 Lessons Learned Task Force (NUREG-0578) Recommendation 2.1.2.
Petition at 16.
The EPRI test program includes examples of valves in use, or planned for use, in all nuclear power plants, as well as representative.
o
piping configurations.
Petitioner, however, claims that all safety and relief valves should be tested prior to operation and periodically thereafter.
Applicants believe that Petitioner has misunderstood the extent of testing performed on the safety and relief valves.
As summarized in FSAR section 5.4.13.4, these valves will be subjected to preoperational and start-up tests, to periodic testing in accordance with the plant Technical Specifications and to required inservice inspections.
CHANGE /ELP has not addressed these testing requirements in their proposed Contention 42, nor have they set forth any basis in supporc of the proposition that the valve prototype test program is insufficient.
Absent such specifics, Applicants submit that proposed Contention 42 should be rejected for lack of basis.
Proposed Contention 43 asserts that the indications of safety and relief valve position must show the actual position of the valve, independent of the control switch.
Petition at 16.
As described in the TMI Appendix to the FSAR, the power-operated relief valves (PORVs) are provided with a 5
Petitioner does not specifically designate which valve (s) are the subject of proposed Contention 43.
Applicants assume, based on Petitioner's reference to the FSAR, that this conten-tion concerns the pressurizer relief and safety valves.
positive, unambiguous position indication derived from a limit switch (not a manual control switch) activated by the valve stem.
Additional indirect means of determining PORV position are also provided.
The physical configuration of the safety relief valves is such that a direct indication (i.e., via a limit switch controlled by the valve) is not practicable.
Therefore, Applicants will install an acoustic monitoring system capable of detecting flow through these valves.6 See TMI Appendix to FSAR, TMI-11, 12.
CHANGE /ELP, while referencing Applicants' description of the valve monitoring system, do not specifically address this system, nor does it provide any factual support for their assertion that Applicants' system is inadequate.
In light of the detailed description of Applicants' proposal for monitoring safety and relief valve position, Applicants submit that proposed Contention 43 lacks sufficient basis and specificity to be admitted as a' contention in this proceeding.
6 Valve position in and of itself is not a critical opera-tional parameter.
Rather, it is important for the control room operators to know whether primary coolant is being discharged through the valve (i.e.,
whether there is flow through the valve).
The Lessons Learned Task Force recognized this fact and included flow monitors as one of the recommended methods for providing this information.
See NUREG-0578 at A-10. - - -
7.
Water Level Instrumentation (Contention 44)
CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 44 contends that a direct, environmentally qualified indication of reactor vessel water level is required.
Petition at 16.
Applicants recognize proposed Contention 44 as raising a cognizable issue in this proceeding and do not object to its admission.
Applicants will, however, be seeking additional specificity from Petitioner through discovery following the submittal to the Staff of its plans for additional instrumentation.
See TMI Appendix to the FSAR, at TMI-18, 19.
J.
Emergency Planning (Contentions 3, 4,
15, 41, 46)
The general thrust of proposed Contention 3 is that a plume EPZ for Harris of approximately 10 miles in radius is insufficient in light of, inter alia, "the design of the facility, the large population concentrations [specifically, the cities of Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill and Pittsboro), the variability and unpredictability of meteorological conditions in the area around the site, and Applicants' stated intention to make the site a storage site for spent fuel from other plants."
Petition at 4.
However, as indicated in FSAR Figures 13.3.2-1 and 13.3.2-2, the cities of Raleigh, Durnam, Chapel Hill and Pittsboro are all well outside the 10-mile radius of l
l l l
Harric.
Further, none of the other factors cited by CHANGE /ELP are facuers to be considered in defining the precise configura-tion of the plume EPZ.
See 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(c)(2).
Thus, for reasons discussed in Applicants' Response To Eddleman, at Contentions 30, 57, CHANGE /ELP proposed Contention 3 must be rejected as a proscribed challenge to the Commission's emergency planning regulations.
Applicants further note that:
(1) NRC guidance permits a smaller geographic emergency planning basis for independent spent fuel storage facilities than is required for commercial nuclear reactors such as Harris;7 and (2) only a specified amount of spent fuel physically can be stored at Harris regardless of its origin.
Thus, CHANGE /ELP's assertion that an extended EPZ is justified by Applicants' plans to store spent fuel from other sites at Harris is without basis.
Proposed Contention 4 actually consists of several unrelated assertions raising emergency planning issues.
Petition at 4.
The first assertion -- that there is not reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures will be taken in an emergency -- is objectionable as a broad
" catch-all" assertion which simply restates the ultimate 7
NUREG-0587, " Analyses of Comments on 10 C.F.R. Part 72,"
(Nov. 1980), at I-8.
s emergency planning issue, and fails to give the other parties any notice whatsoever of the particular emergency planning issues which CHANGE /ELP wishes to litigate.
Thus, this portion of the contention plainly lacks the specificity required by the Commission's Rules of Practice.
While it is not appropriate to admit this portion of the contention as presently worded, Applicants recognize that the issuance of draft emergency plans will constitute good cause for the filing of new contentions.
The appropriate course, then, is for CHANGE /ELP to review the emergency plans and then submit specific contentions, if any, with respect to any deficiencies it identifies in the emergency plans.
CHANGE /ELP further asserts that emergency planning for Harris is inadequate in that it does not consider evacuation of hospitals in Chapel Hill and Raleigh, and " overlook (s] the proximity of at least three large urban concentrations to the plant" -- though unspecified, the cities referred to are presumably Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill.
Like proposed Contention 3, this part of proposed Contention 4 must be rejected as an impermissible challenge to the Commission's emergency planning regulations.
See 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(c)(2).
Finally, CHANGE /ELP asserts a need for a " full-scale exercise" of the emergency plans, " involving a substantial _
portion of the populations likely to be affected."
- However, CHANGE /ELP has not pointed to any particular deficiencies in the program of emergency planning exercises and drills described in section 13.3.8.1.5 of the FSAR; indeed, CHANGE /ELP has not even referenced that section of the FSAR.
Thus, that part of proposed Contention 4 which raises the subject of drills must be rejected as lacking in specificity and bases.
Further, to the extent that CHANGE /ELP asserts a need for public participation in emergency planning exercises, it has referenced no bases for such a requirement, and Applicants know of none.
Rather, in promulgating the new emergency planning regulations, the Commission expressly rejected such a provi-sion, requiring only the conduct of "[a] full-scale exercise which tests as much of the licensee, State, and local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public participation
." 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, 5 IV.F
[ emphasis supplied].
Therefore, if CHANGE /ELP is asserting a need for public participation in emergency planning exercises, Applicants oppose the admission of that portion of Contention 4 on the further ground that it constitutes a challenge to the Commission's emergency planning regulations.
For all these reasons, Applicants oppose the admission of proposed Contention 4 in its entirety. -
Proposed Contention 15 alleges a need for a " crisis relocation plan," due to the " nature and long-term health effects of particulate releases from a major accident."
Petition at 8.
However, CHANGE /ELP references no authority b
'ich would require preparation of such a plan, and Applicants
. low of none.
Accordingly, the contention constitutes an impermissible attack on the Commission's emergency planning regulations, since those regulations do not require plans for such relocation.
See Duke Power Comoany (Catawba Muclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP 15 N.R.C.
(March 5, 1982), slip op. at 34.
Proposed Contention 41 asserts that Applicants' summary of their emergency plan is inadequate because it does not specify the details of the plan.
Petition at 15-16.
Applicants do not contest the assertion that the summary fails to provide all the details required in the plan itself.
Thus, the assertion is essentially an uncontested assertion of fact, which is not an appropriate contention for litigation.
Similarly, Applicants do not dispute that "a carefully-prepared, detailed, well-designed plan" must be "in place, tested, and ready to be put into operation" before Harris begins operation.
- However, both these assertions are so lacking in specificity that they utterly fail to put the other parties on notice of the issues
-for litigation.
While it is not appropriate to admit Contention 41 as presently worded, as discussed above with respect to Contention 4, Applicants recognize that the issuance of their draft emergency plan will constitute good cause for the filing of new contentions.
Therefore, CHANGE /ELP should review Applicants' draft plan when it is made available, then propose specific contentions, if any, with respect to any deficiencies it identifies in the plan.
Proposed Contention 46 asserts that the emergency plans are inadequate on the basis of a number of arguments which would, at first blush, appear to be unrelated.
Petition at 16-18.
However, parts (a) through (f) of the contention are all quoted virtually verbatim from the Citizens' Task Force December 21, 1981 petition for rulemaking, PRM-50-31, which is being specifically considered by the Commission, and are therefore inappropriate for litigation in this individual licensing proceeding.
See 47 Fed. Reg. 12639 (March 24, 1982);
Petition for Rulemaking, at 6-10.
Applicants also object to proposed Contention 46 as insufficiently specific because the arguments advanced do not explain how planning is inadequate.
Further, items (a), (b) l and (c) do not support the proposition that emergency planning l
for Harris is inadequate, since they are quotes about planning i
' i i
l l
l l
l
predating the preparation of the emergency plans for Harris.
Accordingly, to that extent, Contention 46 is without basis.
Finally, parts (e) and (f) of Contention 46 assert that the plume EPZ should be expanded from a radius of approximately 10 miles to a radius of approximately 20 miles.
Thus, these parts of Contention 46 constitute yet another challenge to the Commission's emergency planning regulations -- 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47 (c)(2) -- and must be rejected.
See Applicants' Response to Eddleman, at Contentions 30, 57.
For all the above stated reasons, Applicants oppose the admission of proposed Contention 46 in this proceeding.
K.
Security Plan (Contention 45)
For the reasons fully set forth in Applicants' "asponse to Eddleman proposed Contentions 35, 54(2nd) and 133, and their response to Kudzu proposed Contention 12 relating to the sensitivity of Applicants' security plan for the Harris Plant, Applicants request that the Board defer consideration of the admissibility of proposed contentions relating to the Harris security plan until additional information has been furnished to the Board by the Petitioners.
Applicants request, therefore, that they be permitted to defer responding to such proposed contentions until further Board instruction. I
+,
Applicants' Response to Eddleman proposed Contentions 35, 54(2nd) and 133 and Kudzu proposed Contention 12 are incorpo-rated herein by reference.
L.
Management Capability (Contentions 21, 22, 36, 37)
Petitioner's first management capability contention, proposed Contention 21, is very similar to Kudzu Contention 5 and CCNC Contention 21, to which Applicants objected.
Petition at 10.
Applicants also object to CHANGE /ELP Contention 21, which relies on the so-called Jacobstein Report, and lacks basis with reasonable specificity for the reasons set forth in Applicants' Response to Eddleman, at Contention 3(d).
Proposed Contention 22 asserts that Applicants have failed to demonstrate that they are willing to cooperate fully with the NRC, on the basis of an unpublished 1979 NRC report on CP&L's Robinson facility.
Petition at 10.
Applicants object to proposed Contention 22.
Proposed Contention 22 fails to meet the basis requirement of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b).
In this contention CHANGE /ELP relies exclusively on an unspecified document described as a 1979 NRC report on CP&L's Robinson plant.
Petition at 10.
Based on the quotation taken by CHANGE /ELP from the document, Applicants believe that the document is a Februa./, 1979 Staff report _....
entitled, " Board Notification Licensee Regulatory Performance Evaluation," which was a Board exhibit (Bd. Exh. 8) in the remanded Shearon Harris construction permit proceeding on management capability.
See Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2,
3, and 4),
LBP-79-19, 10 N.R.C.
37, 55 n.8 (1979).
Board Exhibit 8 was received into evidence during the CP proceeding for the purpose of demonstrating the Staff's experimental effort to objectively evaluate licensee perform-ance, and the problems associated with using overall licensee event report (LER) trends as such an objective measure.
Id. at 72, n.16 and 73, 11 122 and 123.
Based on its analysis of the evidence, the Board concluded that "[t]he witnesses were not able to provide the Soard with any definite standards for measuring operational performance."
Id. at 73, 1 123.
The authors of the report I&E inspectors -- were assured that their identities would not be revealed; therefore, the comment cited by CHANGE /ELP wiss referred to by the Board simply in order to meet its responsibility "to explore thor-oughly in assuring that a full record is developed."
Id. at 55 n.8.
Nevertheless, through a process of elimination, the Board was able to determine that "the author of the comment has either expressed himself in other terms [before the Board] or l t
s
e, did not believe that his opinion was important enough to be presented to the Board in this proceeding."
Id.
Thus, the 1979 report on which CHANGE /ELP relies in proposed Contention 22 was the subject of consideration by the construction permit Licensing Board in evaluatil.g CP&L's menagement capability during the CP proceeding.
CHANGE /ELP offers no rationale for going back into the same evidence again.
While CHANGE /ELP states, "There has been no management shakeup since that report in 1979," CHANGE /ELP does not explain what sorts of changes it believes this report mandated, muchless how CP&L has failed to meet this mandate.
Applicants do not believe that the report necessitated any action on CP&L's part.
Moreover, CP&L's organization has changed since 1979.
Having utterly failed to (1) provide this information, (2) explain why it is appropriate to go back through the subject report, or (3) refer to the fact that the report was the subject of previous litigation, proposed Contention 22 should be rejected by the Board for its lack of basis.
Proposed Contention 36 challenges the adequacy of Appli-cants' health physics training programs, record keeping and access restrictions.
Petition at 13-14.
Applicants object to proposed Contention 36 because part of the contention consti-tutes a challenge to NRC's regulations, and because no basis is provided by CHANGE /ELP in support of the rest of the contention.
Applicants are required and intend to meet the record-keeping requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 20 with respect to radiation exposures for all individuals for whom personnel monitoring is required.
See 10 C.F.R. 5 20.401.
Included in these requirements is Applicants' responsibility to preserve individual exposure records "until the Commission authorizes disposition."
10 C.F.R. 5 20.401(c)(1).
Thus, insofar as CHANGE /ELP questions Applicants' radiation exposure record-keeping retention commitment, and suggests that because of the alleged lack of retention requirements, an individual could receive an improperly high dose of radiation, CHANGE /ELP is improperly challenging an NRC regulatory requirement in violation of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758.
Consequently, one of the two allegations in proposed Contention 36 is unacceptable.
CHANGE /ELP also argues in propored Contention 36 that Applicants' health physics training p rograms are inadequate.
Specifically, it avers that "[t]oo many of the health physics programs are only 'upon recommendation of the training super-visor,' or 'normally administered'."
Petition at 13.
CHANGE /ELP refers to FSAR section 12.5.3.7.
Id. at 14.
Initially, Applicants disagree with Petitioner's characterization of the SHNPP FSAR section of the health physics training program, section 12.5.3.7.
That section states the eight subject areas, in which individuals who are allowed unescorted access to the restricted area will be required to show proficiency, by passing a written examination.
FSAR S 12.5.3.7.1.
In addition, the FSAR states that individuals who require access to RWP areas normally receive additional training in specified areas.
The only reference to training received upon recommendation of the Training Supervisor or Radiation Protection Supervisor is special training or retraining, e.g.,
for a special repair program.
Furthermore, CHANGE /ELP offers no rationale whatsoever for why additional or other requirements would improve the health physics program at Shearon Harris.
Rather, CHANGE /ELP relies on a general allegation of inadequacy and " lack of real commitment" to substantiate this portion of Contention 36.
Such a contention utterly fails to meet the specificity and basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(b).
In summary, both subissues raised in proposed Contention 36 should be rejected by the Board.
Proposed Contention 37 states that the minimum quali-fications for plant personnel are inadequate because they fail to ensure that there will be at least one supervisor on duty at )
nll times who has achieved at least a Master's degree in nuclear engineering or nuclear physics, and who has demonstra-ted a thorough understanding and analytic ability in reactor thermodynamics, reactor design and operation, and multiple mode failure situations.
Petition at 14.
Applicants object to this contention.
Proposed Contention 37 challenges one of the NRC's post-TMI-2 requirements, as set forth in NUREG-0737, Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements.
Specifically, the TMI Action Plan requires that each licensee provide an on-shift technical advisor to the shift supervisor.
NUREG-0737, Item I.A.1.1.
The shift technical advisor or STA must have a bachelor's degree or equivalent in a scientific or engineering discipline and have received specific training in the response and analysis of the plant for transients and accidents.
NUREG-0737 at 3-3.
CHANGE /ELP would require that an individual with a Master's degree be present on shift in the control room.
Applicants believe that proposed Contention 37 should be rejected for several reasons.
First, consistent with the specificity requirement of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b), the Commission's Statement of Policy permitting litigation of TMI Action Plan Requirements expressly states that such challenges 1 l
I 1
=.
must specify (a) the nexus of the issue to the TMI-2 accident, (b) the significance of the issue, and (c) any differences between a party's position and the rationale underlying the Commission consideration of additional TMI-related require-ments.
Statement of Policy:
Further Commission Guidance for Power Reactor Operating Licenses, CLI-80-42, 12 N.R.C.
654, 660 (1980).
By failing to specify why the TMI Action Plan STA requirement does not satisfy Petitioner's perceived need for engineering support in the control room, CHANGE /ELP has not alerted the parties to the basis for its contention.
It is simply not sufficient, under either the Commission's Statement of Policy or under the general rules of practice, 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b), simply to cite to the Three Mile Island accident as a basis for an additional post-TMI-2 requirement.
Furthermore, the STA requirement which proposed Contention 37 challenges is a specific part of a proposed rulemaking which is pending before the Commission.
See 46 Fed. Reg. 26491, 26493 (1981).
Commission action on the draft final rule is scheduled for June, 1982.
47 Fed. Reg. 18518-18519 (April 29, 1982).
Although the proposed rule _s not yet final, it is clear that if the Commission adopts the rule, it will, "together with existing regulations, form a set of regulations, conformance with which meets the requirements of the Commission _
for issuance of an operating license."
46 Fed. Reg. at 26492.
Thus, adoption of this rule will constitute an effective modification of the Commission's policy permitting adjudication in licensing proceedings of the TMI Action Plan requirements.
Such litigation will be foreclosed in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758.
"(L]icensing Boards should not accept in individual license proceedings contentions which are (or are about to become) the subject of general rulemaking by the Commission."
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB-655, 14 N.R.C.
799, 816 (1981)
(emphasis added), citing Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-218, 8 A.E.C.
79, 85 (1974).
In view of the pendency of a rule requiring that an STA, with a bachelors' degree, be available on shift, proposed Contention 37 should be rejected by the Board.
M.
Municipal Power Agency (Contentions 12,12-13A)
{
l With the minor difference that proposed Contention 12 relates solely to the financial qualifications of Applicant Power Agency and does not extend to other so-called "consor-tiums of municipalities or rural electrical cooperatives," this proposed contention is virtually identical to Kudzu Proposed 4,
Contention 11.
See Petition at 7; Kudzu Petition at 8.
This proposed contention constitutes an improper challenge to the Commission's final rule on financial qualifications, 47 Fed.
Reg. 13750 (March 31, 1982),- and should not be admitted for this reason as elaborated in Applicants' response to Kudzu Proposed Contention 11.
Applicants' Response to Kudzu Proposed Contention 11 is incorporated herein by reference insofar as it relates to Applicant Power Agency.
In an Amendment of Petition for Leave to Intervene, dated May 24, 1982, and served upon Applicants on May 28, 1982, CHANGE /ELP has asked the Board, in Proposed Contention 12-13A, to waive the application of the final rule on financial qualifications with regard to Applicants.
In making this request, CHANGE /ELP mentions alleged financial difficulties of the utility industry.
This contention totally fails to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
S 2.758 that one must demonstrate special circum-stances which would warrant waiver of a regulation's appli-cability in a particular proceeding.
First, the petition is not accompanied by the requisite affidavit which must set forth with particularity special circumstances which allegedly would justify waiver of a regulation..__
s Second, the Amended Petition itself fails to allege any special circumstances which would even arguably support waiver of the final rule on financial qualifications in this pro-ceeding.
A fundamental assumption underlying the final rule is that the issue of an electric utility applicant's financial qualification can be significant in a licensing proceeding only when it is demonstrated to have a real connection with issues of public health and safety.
See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 46 Fed. Reg. 41786, 41788 (1981).
The Commission, in the Supplementary Information published with the final rule, expressly rejected the notion that there is any meaningful connection between the financial condition of an electric utility and protection of public health and safety, citing Public Service Company of New Hampshire and WPPSS as examples of its point.
47 Fed. Reg. at 13751.
In any event, the Amended Petition presents no evidence whatsoever of the actual financial situation of Applicant CP&L.
For the reasons discussed, therefore, this proposed contention should not be admitted.
N.
Miscellaneous (Contentions 17, 80)
Petitioner's proposed Contention 17 charges that the Harris Plant should not be licensed because its design does not :
i
s provide adequate protection against the effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) phenomenon.
Petition at 8.
As set forth below, Applicants contend that this proposed Contention constitutes an impermissible challenge to 10 C.F.R. S 50.13 and, therefore, cannot be considered in this proceeding.
Section 50.13 of the Commission's regulations (10 C.F.R. 6 50.13, set out in Applicants' response to proposed Contention 73,Section II.D. supra) states that applicants are not required to provide design features for protecting against the effects of, inter alia, the use or deployment of weapons incident to U.S.
defense activities.
In that EMP is generated by a high altitude detonation of a nuclear device, Licensing Boards have repeatedly refused to allow litigation of the effects of EMP, as barred by the provisions of 10 C.F.R.
} 50.13.
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al.
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), LBP-81-42, 14 N.R.C.
842, 843-845 (1981); Catawba, supra, slip op. at 34, 35; see also Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2),
LBP-82-28, 15 N.R.C.
(April 12, 1982), slip op. at 2.
On the basis of this clear precedent, proposed Contention 17 must be rejected as constituting an impermissible attack upon the Commission's regulations.
Petitioners' proposed Contention 80 (as revised by its
" Amendment of Petition for Leave to Intervene..." of May 24, 1982) is not a contention per se, but an attack upon section l _
~m
+,
2.714(b) of the Commission's regulations, 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714(b).
Petitioners would have the Board grant them party status immediately upon filing of any contentions, regardless l
of whether these contentions met the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(b).
Applicants contend that this contention presents a challenge to the Commission's Rules of Practice and is well outsice the jurisdiction of the Licensing Board in this operating license proceeding.8 g,,
10 C.F.R. 5 2.104(c).
Further, Applicants believe that this 8
if Petitioner seeks to amend the Commission's Rules of P;actice, the proper vehicle to accomplish this is the filing of a Petition for Rulemaking pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.802, not thcough an individual licensing proceeding.
However, Appli-cants believe that Petitioner would be unsuccessful in this attempt in that, by its use of selective quotations from Court of Appeals decisions, Petitioner has misconstrued the import of these decisions.
- See, e.g.,
Cities of Statesville v.
A.E.C.,
441 F.2d 962, 977 (D.C. Cir., 1969) (agencies should be accorded broad discretion in establishing and applying rules for public participation); BPI v.
A.E.C.,
502 F.2d 424, 428 (D.O. Cir. 1974) (it is not unreasonable for the Commission to require that the prospective intervenor first specify the basis for his request for a hearing).
The Commission's discretion in establishing and adopting its own procedural regulations has been explicitly upheld by the Supreme Court.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
v.
NRDC, 435 U.S.
519, 543-544 (1978).
Finally, Petitioner's assertion that notice pleading, as now practiced in most civil litigation cases, would preclude the need to set forth contentions with particularity is not well taken; absent a showing of truly similar circumstances, judi-cial procedures will not automatically be imported into admin-istrative proceedings.
See Consumers Power Company (Midland i
Plants, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-379, 5 N.R.C. 565, 568 (1977).
Finally, it has been flatly held that the " notice pleading" allowed in federal courts is insufficient in NRC licensing pro-ceedings.
Kansas Gas and Electric Company et al. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-279, 1 N.R.C.
559, 575, n.32 (1975). l
7 S
contention should be dismissed as moot; as is discussed above, several of Petitioner's proposed contentions set forth cogniza-ble issues and it is clear that CHANGE /ELP will be admitted as a party in this proceeding.
l III.
CONCLUSION In their March 3, 1982 responses to the petitions for leave to intervene of CHANGE and ELP, Applicants recognized 1
that each had sufficiently stated an interest in the proceeding to meet the initial requirements for intervention under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714.
In this response, Applicants acknowledge that in their jointly filed supplement to petition to intervene, CHANGE and ELP have set forth two admissible contentions (44 and amended 30).
Therefore, Applicants do not oppose the l
l
t tj granting of their respective petitions and the motion of ELP for consolidation with CHANGE filed May 12, 1982.
Respectfully submitted, George F. Trowbridge, P.C.
Thomas A.
- Baxter, P.C.
John H.
O'Neill, Jr.
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E.
Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.
O.
Boxs1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919' "6-7707 Dated:
June 15, 1982 i s J