ML20054F979
| ML20054F979 | |
| 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 8206180295 | |
| Download: ML20054F979 (25) | |
Text
!
w l
3
)
., v -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
$~@,mr NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
", gg 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 RICHARD D.
- WILSON, M.D.
George F. Trowbridge, P.C.
Thomas.'.. 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 8206180295 820615 PDR ADOCK 05000400 o
e TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INDEX.......................................................
11 I.
INTRODUCTION............................................
1 II.
RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS.................................
2 A.
Requirements for Contentions.......................
2 B.
Need for Power, Alternative Energy Sources, Cost-Benefit Analysis (Contentions I.(h),
IV.A(a)-(c))...................
2 C.
Other Environmental Issues.........................
6 1.
Impacts of Cooling Tower Vapor on Orchard Ecosystem (Contentions I.(a)-(d))..... 6 2.
Impacts of Cape Fear River Water (Contentions I.(e),
(f))......................
7 3.
Radiological Monitoring (Contentions IV.C(e),
(f))....................
9 4.
Radioactive Bio-Accumulation in Terrestrial Ecosystems (Contention I.(g)).....ll D.
Waste Storage and Transportation (Contention IV.D(f))..............................
12 E.
Decommissioning (Contention IV.A(d))..............................
13 F.
Plant Design (Contention IV.B(d)).................
14 G.
Emergency Planning (Contentions II.(a)-(h))..........................
15 H.
Management Capability (Contentions III.(a),
(b))........................
1C III.
CONCLUSION.............................................
20
-i-l
INDEX Contention Page I.(a)-(d) 6 I.(e) 7 I.(f) 8 I.(g) 11 I.(h) 4 II.(a) 15 II.(b) 15 II.(c) 15 i
II.(d) 16 II.(e) 16 II.(f) 17 II.(g) 18 II.(h) 18 i
III.(a) 19 III.(b) 19 IV.A(a) 5 IV.A(b) 3 IV.A(c) 4 IV.A(d) 13 IV.B(d) 14 IV.C(e),(f) 9 IV.D(f) 12 4.
d
,----,e,
-r-.-
- -..n.. -.
n.,
,--,,--e_._,,.
..-,--..----,,.---_c---
- - ~ ~,
1'a' 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 MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION TO INTERVENE BY RICHARD D.
- WILSON, M.D.
I.
INTRODUCTION By a pleading entitled " Contentions of Petitioner to Intervene Richard D. Wilson, M.D.," dated May 14, 1982, Dr. Wilson has proposed twenty-nine contentions.1!
Applicants Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency herein present their responses to the contentions proposed by Dr. Wilson.
Seven prospective intervenors in the above-captioned proceeding have filed proposed contentions.
Many of the proposed contentions duplicate similar issues raised by other petitioners.
Mr. Wells Eddleman proposed approximately 135 1/
Dr. Wilson's proposed contentions are not enumerated 1 through 29; rather, the proposed contentions are divided into four broad categories (I-IV) with several subparts to each category.
n w
enumerated contentions which are addressed in " Applicants' Response to Supplement to Petition to Intervene by Wells Eddleman" (hereinafter referred to as " Applicants' Response to Ed !1eman" ), which has been filed with all prospective parties contemporaneously with this response.
Most of the issues raised by Dr. Wilson are subsumed in contentions proposed by Mr. Eddleman.
Thus, rather than duplicating the detailed response to Mr. Eddleman's similar cententions here, Applicants have liberally cross-referenced to the discussion in Applicants' Response to Eddleman.
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 admitmed for adjudication in this proceeding.
B.
Need for Power, Alternative Energy Sources and Cost-Benefit Analysis (Contentions I.(h), IV.A(a)-(c))
At Applicants' Response to Eddleman,Section II.B, we have discussed in some detail the cost-benefit balance that is to be struck at the operating license stage.
As we noted there, Applicants' cost-benefit analysis in the ER was prepared prior.
to the Commission's amendments to 10 C.F.R. Part 51 (47 Fed.
Reg. 12940 (March 26, 1982)).
It included information on need for power,
i.e.
load forecasts and reserve margins.
It also compared the Harris Plant with other alternatives and included in its comparison both construction and operating costs.
With the change in the rules, such a comparison is no longer neces-sary or relevant.
Applicants will replace the existing cost-benefit analysis with one which compares only the operating cost (including fuel) of the Harris Plant with other available capacity.
Dr. Wilson proposes a number of contentions which would find fault with Applicants' cost-benefit analysis.
Contention IV.A(b) states that Applicants have violated the intent of the laws requiring a cost-benefit analysis "by comparing the corporation's benefits with the public's costs."
Dr. Wilson claims that the cost-benefit analysis should analyze the costs and benefits to the public only.
Petition at 12.
The state-ment in ER Chapter 11 on revenues to be generated was simply one measure of the value of electricity from the Harris Plant.
The revised analysis that will be submitted by Applicants will consider savings in system operating costs due to operation with the Harris Plant.
Those cost savings will indeed inure to the benefit of the public, as will the electricity generated by the Plant.
In any case, a NEPA cost-benefit balance was struck.
at the construction permit stage and the power from the Harris Plant was found to be a public benefit that outweighed the identified environmental costs.
See in this docket, LBP-78-4, 7 N.R.C.
92, 144 (1978).
By rule, the Comnission has found that, absent a showing of special circumstances pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.758, the need for power, indeed the benefit, need not be relitigated.
Thus, Dr. Wilson has not offered a litigable contention., Contention IV.A(b) must therefore be rejected as failing to present an issue cognizable before this Board.
Contention IV.A(c) states that the analysis of the cost of construction work in progress is inadequate because it fails to estimate the profits lost by,the public because of the incor-poration of construction costs into the current rate base and the resultant mandatory investment.
Petition at 12.
As discussed in Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Section II.B and at Eddleman Contentions 14-17, such construction costs are not cognizable before this Board in the operating license proceeding.
Construction costs are sunk costs and as such do not enter into the decision whether or not to operate the Harris Plant.
Therefore, Contention IV.A(c) should not be admitted.
Contention I.(h) would have Applicants consider the economic consequences of disrupting Dr. Wilson's marketing.
9
,---r
~
system at his orchard in the event of "an accident, a near accident or just general apprehension on the part of the public during routine operation" which might seriously disrupt his business.
Petition at 5.
Dr. Wilson has provided no basis for the assumption of an accident, near accident or apprehension which might seriously disrupt his business.
Applicants are not required to consider issues that are " remote and speculative."
Life of the Land v. Brinegar, 485 F.2d 460, 472 (9th Cir.
1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 961 (1974).
Contention I.(h) must be rejected as without basis and requisite specifity for an issue to be considered in a adjudicatory proceeding.
Finally, at Contention IV.A(a) Dr. Wilson asserts that Applicants' cost-benefit analysis is " deficient in the general sense that it fails to consider any direct effects on the human population of the region."
Petition at 12.
This contention is vague, and the premise is simply untrue.
The entire ER deals with the impacts not only on plants, animals, terrestrial and aquatic environment, but on man.
Thus, for example, ER section 5.2.1.2 deals with radiological impacts from routine operations on man.
ER section 5.2.4 deals with the dose rate estimates for man from radioactivity in the environment, and ER section 5.2.4.4 summarizes annual population doses.
ER section 5.6.1 deals with noise from plant operations, and ER Chapter 11 on benefits discusses the economic and other benefits to the
-S-
community.
Dr. Wilson provides no basis with requisite specificity for this contention.
The suggestion that biologi-cal damage from normal operating exposures should be addressed as part of the cost-benefit balance is not supported.
Nor does he provide any basis with requisite specificity that any cost of stress should be considered.
Contention IV.A(a) is vague, overly broad and without basis and requisite specificity for an issue to be litigated in an adjudicatory proceeding.
C.
Other Environmental Issues 1.
Impacts of Cooling Tower Vapor on Orchard Ecosystem (Contentions I.(a)-(d))
Dr. Wilson states at Contentions I(a)-(d):
" Applicant took great care to analyze the biological effects of cocling tower blowdown on the on-site reservoir but has neglected many non-radiological effects of the cooling tower vapor effluent on the surrounding area He expresses particular concern regarding the impacts of cooling tower vapor on the plants and insects of h: 2 orchard ecosystem.
Dr. Wilson states that (a) the extent and impact of chlorine dispersal is not adequately defined, (b) chlororganic compounds dispersed in cooling tower evaporation may be toxic to the surrounding biosphere, (c) sulphuric acid and hydrogen peroxide added to correct pH may be toxic to the surrounding biosphere, and (d) other chemicals.
which could include biocides added to cooling tower water could be toxic to the biosphere.
Petition at 3-4.
Applicants do not object to admission of a contention that deals with the issues raised by Dr. Wilson.
We propose that such a single contention be restated as follows:
" Applicants have not adequately considered the impacts on the surrounding orchard ecosystems (including impacts on plarts and bees) of the following components which may be present in cooling tower vapor dispersed to the environs of the Harris Plant: (a) chlorine, (b) chlororganic compounds, (c) sulphuric acid and hydrogen peroxide, and (d) any other biocides that will be added to the cooling tower water which could be toxic to the orchard ecosystems."
2.
Impacts of Cape Fear River Water (Contentions I.(e), (f)
Contention I(e) asserts that large amounts of water will frequently be pumped from the Cape Fear River into the Harris Plant reservoir, and subsequently large volumes of contaminated water will be dispersed from the cooling towers.
- This, Dr. Wilson believes, could be toxic to the biosphere.
Petition at 4.
However, as discussed in Applicants' Response to NRC Staff " Final Environmental Report Questions," submitted with a letter from M.
A.
McDuffie to H.
R.
Denton dated June 3,
- 1982, the Cape Fear River makeup water pump station and associated pipeline have been cancelled.
Thus, Applicants will not be pumping water from the Cape Fear River into the reservoir.
Contention I(e) is moot.
_7_
Acknowledging his awareness of Applicants' plans to cancel the Cape Fear River water pump station, Dr. Wilson contends at Contention I.(f) that Applicants have not demonstrated an ability to maintain steady state water levels in the Harris Plant reservoir without makeup water from the Cape Fear River.
Petition at 4.
The premise advanced by Dr. Wilson is incor-rect.
There is no requirement for a " steady water level" in the Main Reservoir.
Harris Plant water requirements (still discussed in terms of four units) are detailed in FSAR section 2.4.11.6.
The ultimate heat sink dependability requirements are discussed in FSAR section 2.4.11.7.
The Auxiliary Reservoir will function as the ultimate heat sink in the event of a loss of service water from the cooling towers.
The Auxiliary Reservoir is completely isolated from the Main Reservoir.
Additionally, the Main Reservoir can function as a backup cooling reservoir to the Auxiliary Reservoir if a sufficient level exists in the Main Reservoir.
However, this backup is not needed to safely shut down and cool down all units.
The analysis in the FSAR demonstrates that during
~
hundred year drought conditions, there is at least a 30-day supply of water in each reservoir for emergency shutdown and cooldown of one unit and simultaneous safe shutdown and cooldown of an additional three units, even assuming rainfall during the 30-day emergency period is zero, Buckhorn Creek.
--i.r
_,~,.----+--v y
,.v
-,-,----,m--,m.-----__
r
inflow is zero and Cape Fear River make-up water is zero.
FSAR S 2.4.11.7.
Dr. Wilson has not provided any information that suggests that this analysis is incorrect.
Of course, with only two units, the analysis is even more conservative.
The assumptions provided in Contention I(f) are mistaken.
Dr. Wilson has provided no basis with requisite specificAty for a contention regarding the adequacy of water levels in the Main Reservoir.
3.
Radiological Monitoring (Contention IV.C(e), (f))
Dr. Wilson challenges, in Contentions IV.C(e) and (f), the adequacy of the preoperational and operational radiological monitoring programs.
He contends that the numbers of samples taken are inadequate for statistical comparisons of the biologic and ground sampling survey data before and after operation of the Harris Plant.
Petition at 13.
Similar o
contentions have been proposed with respect to the preopera-tional monitoring program by Mr. Eddleman (Contention 82), CCNC (Contentions 16-18) and CHANGE /ELP (Contentions 69 and 70).
~
Applicants' preoperational environmental radiological monitoring program is summarized in Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Section II.C.l.
Applicants' operational radiolog-ical monitoring program is described in ER section 6.1.5.2.
The rationale for the campling locations is discussed at ER.
O
section 6.1.5.2.1.
The number of monitoring sites and frequency of monitoring at those sites for both the preopera-tional radiological monitoring program and the operational phase of the program 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 nu mbe r of sampling locations and frequency of sampling."
Id.
at 123-24.
The radiological monitoring programs have been established in accordance with appropriate NRC regulatory guidance, including NUREG-0472, Rev.
2.
Table 3.12-1 of NUREG-0472 specifies sample types, number and location of samples, sampling and collection frequencies, and type and frequency of analyses.
The radiological monitoring program described in Applicants' ER complies with NUREG-0472.
Dr. Wilson fails to address the program established in the ER and to indicate specifically which sampling points or sampling frequencies that he finds inadequate.
Furthermore, Dr. Wilson provides no basis for the alleged statistical invalidity of the radiological monitoring program.
Contentions IV.C(e) and (f) simply do not put Applicants on notice as to aspects of the radiological monitoring programs with which he takes issue.
Contentions IV.C(e) and (f) are not allowable contentions because the issues are not raised with clarity and Dr. Wilson fails to provide sufficient basis and specificity.
- 4.
Radioactive Bio-Accumulation in Terrestrial Ecosystems (Contention I.(g))
Contention I.(g) states that ER section 5.2.3 does not address issues of bio-accrmulation in terrestrial ecosystems.
Petition at 4.
Dr. Wilson admits that this issue has been neglected in radio-biology literature, "in part because it is extremely difficult to study."
While noting that it may be a generic issue of some scientific interest, Dr. Wilson asserts that Applicants must explain why operation of the Harris Plant can proceed "even though an overall solution has not been found."
To this regard, he cites Commonwealth Edison Corapany (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-30, 12 N.R.C. 683 (1980).
Dr. Wilson's contention is by his own admission vague and very general.
In the Byron decision he cites, the Board there advised intervenors that "it is incumbent upon intervenors to frame their contentions with sufficient preciseness to show that the issues raised are within the scope of cognizable
' issues to be considered in an adjudicatory proceeding."
- Byron, supra, 12 N.R.C.
at 689.
At ER section 5.2.1.1 Applicants discuss exposure pathways to organisms other than man.
At ER section 5.2.3 dose rate estimates for biota other than man are given.
This section refers to studies which have indicated that minimal effects have been observed on various species with.
--_. _. - -.,.. ~. _ _ _.,,,.,,., _ _., _ -. _,, _.,. _ -
fairly significant dose rates.
And in " numerous investigations that have been made en the effects of radioactivity on biota, no effects have been observed at dose rates as low as those associated with plant effluents."
ER S 5.2.3.
Contrary to the situation cited by Dr. Wilson in the Byron case (involving identified unresolved safety issues; Byron, supra, at 694), no identified problem exists for which a solution must be found.
Dr. Wilson has not pointed to any scientific evidence or any other basis for the contention that radioactivity will bioaccumulete in his apple trees or any other terrestrial biota.
Applicants have identified the available research and studies which confirm that radioactive exposure to biota other than man at the minimal levels of the radioactive effluents from the Harris Plant will have no discernible effect on the environment.
Applicants have no obligation under NEPA to undertake additional studies to 4
attempt to prove this research is valid.
Consequently, Dr. Wilson's contention must be rejected as vague and as devoid of basis with the requisite specificity.
D.
Waste Storage and Transportation (Contention IV.D(f))
Dr. Wilson's Contention IV.D(f) states:
I believe the public's health and safety may be endangered by the failure of the criticality safety analysis (FSAR section 4.3.2.6) to take.
,n
into account new information on unexpected supercriticality situations in fuel storage pools FSAR section 4.3.2.6 sets forth the conservative analysis for criticality upon which the spent fuel storage pool is designed.
As noted in that section, the analysis conservatively assumes the highest enrichment of the fuel without burnable poison, and assumes moderation with nonborated water.
The design of the spent fuel pool in the criticality safety analysis complies with NRC General Design Criterion 62 and NRC Regulatory Guide 1.13.
Dr. Wilson fails to provide a nexus between the cited article and his allegations with respect to inadequacies in the criticality safety analysis in the FSAR.
Dr. Wilson provides no basis with the required specifici' _ as to how the FSAR Safety Analysis is not appropriate.
The simple citation to an article with the bald representation that the detailed criti-cality safety analysis is somehow inadequate provides insuf-ficient information to put Applicants on notice as to what alleged deficiency is asserted.
Contention IV.D(f) must be rejected fot lack of basis with requisii.e specification.
E.
Decommissioning (Contention IV.A(f.))
Wilson proposed Contention IV.A(d) is similar to Eddleman proposed contentions 89 and 104 in asserting that Applicants' cost-benefit balance does not represent the true costs of the.
project in view of the cost uncertainties involved in decom-missioning.
In brief, Applicants oppose the admission of this contention in that the issue of decommissioning (including costs) is soon to become the subject of generic Commission rulemaking.
See Applicants' Response to Eddleman, at Contentions 89, 104.
Further, Wilson contention IV.A(d) fails to provide sufficient specificity in challenging Applicants' decommissioning cost-estimate to be admitted as a litigable issue.
F.
Plant Design (Contention IV.B(d))
Wilson proposed Contention IV.B(d) contends that Applicants' Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) report will not correct certain unspecified human engineering discre-pancies.
Dr. Wilson recognizes that proposed Contention IV.B(d) contains insufficient specificity to present a proper contention, but requests this contention be admitted condition-ally pending an opportunity to review Applicants' DCRDR report.
Applicants, however, believe a wiser course of action would be to reject proposed Contention IV.B(d) as lacking the requisite specificity.
If, upon review of the DCRDR, Dr. Wilson develops specific areas of concern with respect to the design of the Harris control rooms, he would be permitted to raise new contentions based on that information at that time..
G.
Emergency Plannino_(Contentions II.(a)-(h))
Proposed Contention II.(a) broadly alleges that * (t]he evacuation plan will be inadequate."
Petition at 6.
Dr. Wilson charges that "[a]lready there is evidence of important over-sights," but fails to identify that " evidence" in Contention II(a).
The contention is therefore fatally nonspecific, and must be rejected.
However, Applicants recognize that the issuance of draft emergency plans will constitute good cause for the filing of new contentions.
- Thus, the appropriate course is for Dr. Wilson to review the emergency plans when filed and then submit specific conten-tions, if any, with respect to any deficiencies he has identified.
Proposed Contentions II.(b) and (c) are related.
Those contentions assert that the ER erroneously assumes that county growth patterns will apply evenly throughout Wake County.
According to Dr. Wilson, the Cary-Apex area is the largest area of projected growth in the county, and the entire Triangle Area is experiencing " explosive population growth."
Petition at 6.
However, Dr. Wilson has provided no bases for his assertions of error.
Further, his allegations lack specificity.
Even assuming that he is correct in the assertion that certain parts of Wake County experience growth disproportionate to other parts of the county, he has failed to explain specifically how.
that factor would affect emergency planning.
This omission is particularly significant, given the Commission's requirements for regular updating of emergency plans.
- See, e.g.,
10 C.F.R. Part 50, App.
E, S IV.G.
Finally, to the extent that the contentions allege that emergency planning must ex:end beyond approximately a 10-mile radius of Harris --
e.g.,
to the entire Cary-Apex area or to "a 25-mile radius" -- the contentions must r
i be rejected as a direct challenge to S 50.47(c)(2) of the Commission's regulations defining the plume exposure pathway Emargency Planning Zone.
See Applicants' Response to Eddleman, at Contentions 30, 57.
Similarly, proposed Contention II.(d) postulates a need to evacuate "8 hospitals, most with large 3 tensive care units, within the 25-mile radius," though Dr. Wilson concedes that there is only one hospital within a 10-mile radius of Harris.
Petition at 6.
Like proposed Contentions II(b) and (c),
proposed Contention II(d) must be rejected as a challenge to 10 C.F.R.
S 50.47(c)(2).
In proposed Contention II.(e), Dr. Wilson alleges that "the routine off-site and sampling systems w'ould be l
inadequate to provide useful data for emergency action."
l l
Petition at 6-7.
The contention evidences fundamental miscon-ceptions about the manner in which an emergency is declare 6 and assessed.
Applicants will not rely on " routine off-site and.
- - ~ -, -
,~
e
1 which provide non-continuous, post hoc, sampling systems.
cumulative information" to declare and assess emergencies.
The Commission's emergency planning regulations and guidance require provisions for the declaration and assessment of an emergency based on in-plant conditions and instrumentation, so that declaration is not delayed until offsite data can be obtained.
- See, e.g.,
10 C.F.R. Part 50, App.
E, S IV.B.
Some of these in-plant parameters are included as " Example Initiating Conditions" in Appendix 13.3C of the FSAR.
In addition, upon declaration of an accident, Applicants would dispatch their mobile Emergency Monitoring Team to perform continuous real-time off-site radiological assessment.
See FSAR, S 13.3.6.2, 13.3.7.3.2.1, 13.3.l(h).
Thus, proposed Contention II.(e) is utterly lacking in basis, has no foundation in fact, and must therefore be rejected.
Proposed Contention II.(t) charges that the protective action guidelines set forth in Appendix 13.3C of the FSAR are
" inadequate to assure the health and safety of the public."
As a bald, unsupported assertion, this part of the contention plainly lacks the specificity required by the Commission's regulations.
The only illustration of " inadequacy" suggested by Dr. Wilson is the recommendation in the guidelines that evacuation be merely " considered" in certain scenarios;.
apparently, Dr. Wilson would require evacuation in those setnarios.
However, the Commission's regulations do not contemplate that an evacut tion is ever required in an emergency; rather, the decision to evacuate is one to be made considering a number of factors in addition to the severity --
including the projected duration of the release, amount of time
]
(if any) before commencement of the release, and meteorological conditions.
As NUREG-0654 recognizes with respect to a General Emergency, the most severe class of emergency:
The immediate action for this class is sheltering (staying inside) rather than evataation until an assessment can be made that (1) an evacuation is indicated and (2) an evacuation, if indicated, can be completed prior to significant release and transport of radioactive material to the affected areas.
NUREG-0654, at 1-3.
In fact, the tables of Appendix 13.3C which Dr. Wilson criticizes are modeled on Appendix 1 to NUREG-0654.
For these reasons, proposed Contention II.(f) should be rejected as lacking in bases with requisite spe-cificity.
Proposed Contentions II.(g) and (h) assert, respectively, that the " responsibilities and bases for decision-making are not defined explicitly enough," and that the Wake County Department of Emergency Management "will not, because of inadequate staffing and training, be able to provide the specified services
'tre.nsportation of personel,'
' monitoring personnel for contamination,' and ' personnel decontamination'."
Like proposed Contention II.(a), these contentions, as presently worded, lack the bases with reason-able specificity required by the Commission's Rules of Practice and must therefore be rejected.
However, when provided with drafts of the emergency plans, Dr. Wilson mcy submit specific contentions, if any, with respect to any deficiencies he identifies in the plans.
H.
Management Capability (Contentions III.(a), (b))
Dr. Wilson, after discussing his concerns with CP&L's willingness and ability to safely manage a nuclear power plant, advances two contentions, III.(a) and (b), with respect to the quality assurance program.
They are, however, only the most general expressions of concern that CP&L will not maintain an adequate QA program, and that the program suffers from finan-cial considerations and a lack of independence.
Petition at 10.
Dr. Wilson fails to address in any way the extensive program description provided in FSAR section 17.2, " Quality Assurance During the Operating Phase."
Consequently, the contention fails to describe with any degree of specificity what deficiencies Dr. Wilson sees in the program -- either with respect to organizational independence or the negative impact.
_m
of undefined " financial considerations."
Neither does he identify any facet of the program which CP&L is either unwill-ing or unable to maintain, or explain why the ongoing surveil-lance of CP&L's program implementation by NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement would not identify and lead to the correction of any future shortcomings.
Consequently, Dr. Wilson's challenge to the operations OA program is wholly lacking in specificity and basis, and should be rejected.
III.
CONCLUSION In their March 10, 1982, response to Dr. Wilson's petition for leave to intervene, Applicants recognized that Dr. Wilson had sufficiently stated an interest in the proceeding to meet the initial requirements for intervention under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714.
In this response, Applicants acknowledge thct.
4
o r
Dr. Wilson has set forth at least one admissible contention (I.(a)-(d), reformulated).
Therefore, Applicants do not oppose the granting of Dr. Wilson's petition.
Respectfully submitted, u
George F.
Trowbridge, P.C.
l 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 4
Richard E.
Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-7707 l
Counsel for Applicants Dated:
June 15, 1982 1,
.