ML20082D484
| ML20082D484 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1983 |
| From: | Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8311220442 | |
| Download: ML20082D484 (43) | |
Text
.
u 4
.j .,
- p. y',,t .y .,m . .q
- USNRC b
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing' Board Public Service Electric and )
Gas Company )
) Docket No. 50-354-OL (Hope Creek Generating )
Station) )
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO PROPOSED CONTENTIONS OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Preliminary Statement In a Decision dated October 5, 1983, the presiding Atomic Safety end Licensing Board (" Licensing Board" or
" Board") granted u petition for-leave to intervene filed by the Public Advocate of the State of New Jersey, stibj ect to his. pleading "one or more viable contentions with the bases therefore set forth with reasonable. specificity."1# -
On November 7, 1983, the Public Advocate served 10 proposed contentions and a supporting memorandum of law. As discussed more fully below, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, et al. (" Applicants") oppose admission of the proposed contentions on the grounds that they fail to meet the requirements under 10 C.F.R. 52.714 for admissibility.
1/ Public Service Electric and Gas Comcany (Hope Creek Generating Station), Docket No. 50-354-OL, "Motice of Special Prehearing Conference" (October 5, 1983) (slip op. at 5).
~
8311220442 831118 PDR ADOCK 05000354 o eda g5
.- 2 --
Some of the contentions pertain to matters which are beyond the scope of this proceeding or generic in nature.
Other contentions are speculative and one is premature even if otherwise admissible. The remainder of the contentions lack adequate specificity and bases and simply fail to raise any litigable issue.
Argument The general principles regarding the admissibility of a proposed contention are well known to the Board and need not be outlined here. While the Public Advocate shows some appreciation of these rules, the proposed contentions fail to meet the cited requirements. For example, the Public Advocate has cited a number of sections in the Hope Creek Final Safety Analysis . Report ("FSAR") and Environmental Report ("EROL") in an apparent effort to meet the specificity and bases requirements. The mere recitation of the contents of these documents, however, adds no substance l'
.to the proposed contentions.
It is well established that a contention may not merely allege generally that the application for an operating license is. inadequate. This fails to meet the specificity requirement of 10 C.F.R. 52.714(b) and licensing boards have refused to admit such contentions. Vague contentions are particularly objectionable where, as here, the FSAR, EROL or i
other portion of the application pertinent to the contention discusses in detail the manner in which the Commission's I
requirements are being met. In Catawba, the Board reviewed the specificity requirement in detail, stating, inter alia:
Section 714 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (10 CFR 2.714 (b) requires that "the bases for each contention [be] set forth with reason-able specificity." It is not enough, for example, merely to allege that aspects of an applicant's plans will not comply with Commission regulations. A contention must include a reasonably specific articulation of its rationale -
e.g., why the applicant's plans fall short of certain safety requirements, or will have a particular detrimental o effect on the environment. This specificity requirement serves several purposes. It facilitates board deter-minations whether contentions are litigable. For example, a contention is to be excluded if it is, in substance, an impermissible attack on a Commission rule, or if it is not within the scope of the proceeding.2/
This principle has been applied in numerous cases denying vague contentions. In Susquehanna3/ the Licensing Board denied a contention which alleged that portions of the applicant's EROL understated certain effects _of an accident.
The Board held that the proposed contention failed to meet the Commission's test for specificity and stated:
In order to evaluate whether a con-tention presents an issue in 2/ Duke Power Comcany (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-16, 15 NRC 566, 570 (1982), rev'd on other grounds, ALAB-687, 16 NRC 460 (1982).
3/ Pennsylvania Power & Light Company (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, " Memorandum and Order on Pending Motions and Requests" (July 7,'1981).
controversy, the regulations specify that their bases should be set forth
- with reasonable specificity. Here, we are left to wander aimlessly in our speculation on the details of the allegations--a practice obviously unfair to proper procedure, to the parties and the Board. -The contention will not be admitted.4_/
Likewise, in Offshore Powerb! the Licensing Board denied admission of a contention which merely asserted that the Staff in the Final Environmental Statement inadequately considered and improperly dismissed various alternatives to the licensing of the proposed stations. The Board found this contention to be inadmissible because it was conclusionary and lacking in the necessary specificity and factual bases. The Board stated that "[c]ontentions which are barren and unfocused are of no assistance to us in the resolution of the issues to be decided."1 In the Seabrook proceeding, the Licensing Board- rejected a contention regarding a general deficiency in the qualification of equipment as too broad to be litigated in an operating license proceeding because the intervenor had not 4/ Id., slip op. at 4.
Offshore Power Systems (Manufacturing License for 5_/
Floating Nuclear Power Plants), LBP-77-48, 6 NRC 249 (1977).
6/ Id. at 250.
7/ Id. at 251.
, e- w ,, ,- --e -- - w - - - , -- -
specifically designated the equipment or categories of equipment to'which the contention related.E Similarly, in the GE MorrisS proceeding, the Licens-ing Board rejected a contention that the applicant had not taken into account the close proximity of two facilities,
' noting that "[n]o litigable issue is presented" by the mere recitation of this information in the petition.E! Accord-ingly, the mere statement by the Public Advocate that he disagrees with the content of a particular section or wishes to litigate some purported difference of fact does not, under the Commiasion's rules, provide the requisite bases and specificity to raise a litigable issue. Such con-tentions should be denied as vague and unfounded.
Further, the Public Advocate has overlooked the recent ruling by the Appeal Board in Catawba, affirmed in part by 8/ Public Service -Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) , Docket Nos. 50-443 OL and 50-444 OL, " Memorandum and Order" (September 13, 1982)
(slip op. at 15-16).
9_/
General Electric Company (GE Morris Operation Spent Fuel Storage Facility), Docket No. 70-1308 OLA (Spent Fuel Pool), " Order Ruling on Contentions of the Party" (June 4, 1980). See also Commonwealth Edison Company (Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1), LBP-82-52, 16 NRC 183, 193 (1982); Public Service Comoany of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-556-CP and 50-557CP, " Memorandum and Order" (January 11, 1982) (slip op. at 2-4), Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),-LBP-81-18, 14 NRC 71, 75 (1981).
10/ Id., slip op. at 20.
the Commission, overruling the line of cases cited by the Public Advocate which permitted the conditional acceptance of vague contentions where the record of the application had not yet been completed (e.g., emergency planning). On this point, the Appeal Board was unequivocal: "Given the terms and history of Section 2.714(a), we are compelled to the conclusion that a licensing board is not authorized to admit conditionally, for any reason, a contention that falls short of meeting the specificity requirements."b As the Appeal Board explained:
Nothing in the terms of Section -
2.714(b) explicitly vests a licensing board with the power to admit an unac-ceptably vague or imprecise contention conditionally, subject to later revision upon receipt of additional information.
Rather, as we read it, the Section conveys the clear message that, in order to be admitted, the contention must meet the " requirements of this (Section]",
i.e., it must set forth its bases "with reasonable specificity". Moreover, the administrative history of the Section precludes any suggestion that the 11/ Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1
~~
and 2), ALAB-687, 16 NRC 460, 467 (1982), rev'd in part on other grounds, CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041 (1983)
(emphasis in original) . The Commission agreed that vague contentions could not be admitted conditionally, but ruled that the Appeal Board erred in holding that Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act requires a licensing board to treat the " good cause" factor of 10 C.F.R. 52.714 (a) (1) as controlling on the admissibility of a late-filed contention based solely on information unavailable from licensing documents. In other words, all five factors under Section 2.714(a) should be considered for any late contention. See also Wisconsin Electric Company (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1),
ALAB-696, 16 NRC 1245, 1263 (1982).
Commission intended an implicit excep-tion to the specificity requirements in circumstances where, because of a lack of available information, it is not possible for the petitioner to meet those requirements at the time its contentions are due.12_/
The request by the Public Advocate that the Board admit vague contentions, subject to later specification through discovery, or deferred rulings on contentions 13/ must therefore be denied. Such premature contentions, if other-wise admissible, must be raised later when the intervenor can provide the requisite specificity and bases.
s.
Argument I. Pipe Cracks This contention asserts that Applicants have given inadequate consideration to the prevention and mitigation of "Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking" ("IGSCC") in recirculation piping installed at Hope Creek, and that such piping should be tested for susceptibility to IGSCC and replaced or given appropriate preventive treatment. As the basis for the contention, the Public Advocate cites three documents which generally discuss IGSCC at boiling water reactors ("BWR's").E! There is no allegation as to how 12/ 16 NRC at 466.
13/ Public Advocate's Memorandum of Law at 6.
14,/ The reference to Regulatory Guide 8.8 (Rev. 3, 1978) apparently relates to Contention II.
this problem relates specifically to Hope Creek or any assertion that this problem is not being properly addressed with regard to the Hope Creek facility. Thus, there is no basis whatsoever to support.the contention that " Applicants have given inadequate consideration to the prevention and mitigation of IGSCC."E In fact, the proposed contention does not cite, much less allege failure to consider, NUREG-0313 (Rev. 1, 1979),
which contains the NRC's position on IGSCC. FSAR S1.11.1 states the differences in Hope Creek from the Staff's Standard Review Plan Acceptance Criteria. One of the Acceptance Criteria under SRP 55.2.3 is NUREG-0313.
Reference to FSAR Table 1.11-1 at page 10 indicates that this particular criterion has not been included and is therefore applicable to Hope Creek. Accordingly, Applicants have committed to meeting NUREG-0313 regarding inservice inspection requirements. Moreover, Applicants' commitment to NUREG-0313 as regards the recirculation system has been stated in a letter to the NRC dated September 28, 1979 (Items 4, 5, and 6).EI All recirculation piping at Hope l
Creek has been identified and assessed for IGSCC M/ Public Advocate's Appendin 1 -
Contentions
(" Contentions") at 1.
-16/ See letter f rom R.L. Mittl, General Manager-Licensing and Environment, Engineering and Construction, Public Service Electric _and Gas Company to Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation (September 28, 1979).
I
- l susceptibility. All welds within the recirculation system have been treated to mitigate IGSCC, either by application of corrosion-resistant cladding or colution heat treatment, as appropriate under NUREG-0313. The Public Advocate has acknowledged these treatments as sufficient preventative 17 /
measures.
The contention also asserts that Applicants must implement an inservice inspection program using regular and verifiable inspection techniques "which do not rely upon manual ultrasonic testing" ("UT"). In NUREG-0313 (Rev.
1, 1979), the NRC takes the posibi n that piping treated by acceptable mitigating techniques need only be inspected in accordance with ASliE Section XI. NUREG-0313 does not, however, state that inservice inspection must be performed
-17/ Contentions at 2. It is well recognized that when the action with which a contention is concerned has been taken, that contention becomes moot. Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-106, 16 NRC 1649, 1659 (1982); Dairyland Power Ccocerative (Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor),
LBP-80-2, 11 NRC 44, 55 (1980); and Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units lA, 1B, 2A and 2B), LBP-76-16, 3 NRC 485, 490 (1976).
1_8_/ Contention at 2. Apparently, this aspect of the contention relates to the issue of occupational exposures, addressed in Contention II, rather than pipe cracking.
only with automated equipment. In some areas, recirculation piping is configured to permit effective weld inspections with automated equipment, but_ manual inspection will be necessary in other areas. The Public Advotste has not cited any legal basis in the regulations or Staff guidance that
-this arrangement is unacceptable.
Che proposed contention fails to state any basis for litigating the acceptability of the NRC's approval or the Applicants' commitment. This generalized contention should therefore be denied.
.x II. Pide Cracking and ALARA Chis contention asserts that Applicants have not demonstrated an ability to perform the inspection, detection and repair necessary for safety-related piping in the drywell. Although the contention as literally stated does not allege any reason why Applicants will be unable to perform these activities, the background to the contention indicates the Public Advocate's apparent belief that inser-vice inspections in the drywell will result in a violation of the "as low as reasonably achievable" ("ALARA")
requirement for radiation exposure and releases of radioactive effluents to unrestricted areas under 10 C.F.R. 520.l(c) . Asserting that the drywell must be
" redesigned,"EI the Public Advocate claims that the operation.of Hope Creek " threatens to violate" Part 20.2of Preliminarily, it must be pointed out that ALARA requirements are inapplicable to occupational exposure levels'in 10 C.F.R. S20.101. The Staff has recommended in Regulatory - Guide 8.8 that ALARA standards be applied to
. occupational exposures. While a Regulatory Guide is "advi-sory rather than obligatory," without the legal force of a regulation,21/- Hope Creek is designed to reduce occupational exposures below permissible levels consistent
. i with ALARA. A's a basi's for a contention, however, ALARA is legally irrelevant to occupational exposures.
In any event, no basis whatever is given for this contention. The same contention was rejected in Catauba where the Board stated:
This contention is disallowed because it fails to ' provide any reasonably specific basis for the assertion that ALARA requirements of 10 CFR 20.1 will not be met. The Applicants have set forth in Section 12.1 of the FSAR their program for "(e)nsuring that occupation-al radiation exposures are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA)." The contention, however, does not question this program or any part of it. Specu-lation that large collective doses of 19/ Id. at 4.
20/. Id.
21/ Pacific Gas'and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-644, 13 NRC 903, 937 (1981). .
\
g radiation might be received by repairmen i
at some future time because of the premature failure of equipment is not grounds for a showing that ALARA princi-s -pies were ignored.2_2]
The only basis cited for this contention is the state-ment attributed to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regu-lation, which refers to Mark I reactors in general, not specifically to Hope Creek. In any event, the proposed contention fails to specify any noncompliance with regulato- ,
The mere speculation by an I ry requirements or standards.
intervenor that an applicant might not comply with a regu- ,
..x lation does not raise a litigable issue.
As in Catawba, the Public Advocate has failed to identify any inadequacy in the discussion of ALARA in FSAR S12.1.2_3_/ In particular, no inadequacy is a13 eged in FSAR SS12.1.2.1 (general design considerations for overall radiation protection and minimizing the need for personal access into high radiation areas), 12.3.1.2 (common facility and layout designs for ALARA) , or 12.3.2 (shielding). No basis is given for disputing the discussion of dose assessment in FSAR 512.4, or the particular inservice inspection dose estimate of 39 man-rem per year in FSAR 22/ Catawba, suora, LBP-82-16, 15 NRC at 585.
23) 3 As noted above, the Public Advocate cites Regulatory Guide 8.8 in Contention I, but does not allege how Applicants have failed to meet those' standards.
5i
- -, . . ~ -,
S12.4.1.3.3.El As that section notes, this calculation is derived from considerable experience obtained with inservice inspection of piping in many BWR's. Accordingly, this contention is wholly lacking in basis or specificity and should be denied.
III. Degradation of Electrical Cables in the Drywell This contention asserts that Applicants have given ina6 equate consideration to the degradation of electricfl
- cables and other unspecified safety-related systems in the s drywell.2_5,/
The Public Advocate relies upon the bases cited in support of Contentions I, II, and VI. Contentions I and II, however deal with alleged pipe cracks, not environmental qualification of safety-related equipment and components.El This contention is extremely broad and vague. Here again, there is no assertion that Applicants have failed to comply with regulatory standards or requirements. The 24/
The fact that the NRC Staff has requested additional information in the FSAR itself creates no litigable issue. Nonetheless, the particular questions to which the Public Advocate refers (Contentions at 5) do not relate to inservice inspections and ALARA.
25/ The background statement to this proposed contention initially raises a point related to ALARA, which Applicants assume, given the nrust of the proposed contention, is either misplaced or prefatory.
26/ In answer to Contention VI, infra, Applicants demonstrate that the generalized references cited by the Public Advocate do not support either Contention '
III or VI.
Public Advocate merely alleges his belief that environmental qualification of electrical cables "is uncertain."El such speculation is entirely inadequate to raise a litigable issue.
The Public Advocate does not allege a failure to comply with 550.49, NUREG-0588 or Regulatory Guide 1.70 regarding the content of Applicants' program for environmental qualification of safety-related systems.EI Applicants' Response to Question 270.2 (Amendment 2, Octiober 1983) outlines its Environmental Qualification Progpam.E! As x
required, the FSAR identifies . all Class 1E equipment (see FSAR SS3.11.1.1.1 and 3.11.1.2), and states that all safety-related Class 1E elcctrical equipment will be qualified for harsh environment as specified in NUREGO-0588 to meet ' the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 1, 4, 23 and 50 (see FSAR 5S3.11.2.1 and 3.11'. 2. 2 ) . The Public Advocate does not discuss these provisions, let alone challenge their adequacy. As such, 27/ Contentions at 6.
28/ It is noted that under 10 C.F.R. 550.49, Applicants with start up dates after 1985 are required to bc in full compliance with environmental qualification requirements prior to start up. The Staff position in IE Bulletin 79-01B (Supp. 2) is ' that each operating license applicant must show adequate environmental qualification of Class 1E devices six months prior to fuel load.
H/ As stated in note 50, program methodology.
infra, the NRC has approved the e
this contention is wholly lacking in any specificity or bases.
IV. Flooding In this contention, the Public Advocate alleges inade-quate consideration cf (1) flooding within the Delaware Watershed and Estuary, (2) flooding associated with tidal fluctuations and ocean storms, and (3) flooding above historical levels due to a rise in sea Jevel because of the
" greenhouse effect." This contention is not only vague and totally lacking in basis, but also fails to explain why these . matters may even be considered at the operating license stage.
It is well undarstood that, absent significant new information, environmental issues considered at the con-struction permit stage will not be reconsidered in conjunc-tion with the operccion license application. E As the Licensing Board in Limerick summarized:
Not all environmental issues need be reconsidered at the operating license stage. The Commission's regulations provide that the Environmental Report submitted by the Applicant with its application for an operating license will include the same matters discussed in the Environmental Report for a construction permit "but only to the extent that'they differ from those Illinois Pcwer Company (Clinton Power Station, Unit tio.
30f 1) , LSP-82-103, 16 NRC 1603, 1612 (1982); Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Muclear Pouer Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-24, 14 NRC 175, 198 (1981). .
discussed or reflect new information in addition to that discussed in connection with the construction permit." 10 CFR 551.21. In turn, the scope of the Staff's Draft and Final Environmental Statements (DES and FES) at the operat-ing License stage is defined by matters which Section 51.21 ' mandates for the Applicant's Environmental Report. See 10 CFR $551.23 and 51.26. . . . Thus, it is clear that NEPA does not mandate that environmental issues considered in the construction permit proceedings be con-sidered again in the operating license hearing, absent new information.H/
No attempt is made to show, for example, why the discussion of tidal flows, storm surges and severe wave action in Section 2.5.1 of the Final Environmental Statement (February 1974) ("FES") for Hope Creek should be updated with regard to allegedly "new" information on these topics.
Even considered as a safety issue, the Public Advocate fails to address consideration of flooding in FSAR 52.4.2, which clearly estublishes that flooding due to phenomena generated within t' a e Delaware watershed and estuary are not critical to flood design for the Hope Creek facility. The FSAR conservatively postulates the simultaneous occurrence of a hypothetical Probable Maximum (Ocean) Hurricane with greater than a 1,009-year reoccurrence, a 10 percent exceedance of the highest astronomical spring tide with a 10-year M/ Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-43A, 15 NRC 1423, 1458-59 (1982) (citations omitted).
reoccurrence and the maximum wave action generated by the most severe wind direction case.EI .
Even though the simultaneous occurrence of these worst case events is extremely low, the Hope Creek facility is designed to meet these extreme conditions in accordance with Reg 21atory Guides 1.59 and 1.102, regarding design basis floods and flood protection.EI Nothing alleged by the Public Advccate calls into question the adequacy of this discussion.34/ '
The remaining cpncern deals with a rise in sea level resulting from the " greenhouse" effect, a "world wide --
warming trend caused by the atmospheric build-up of carbon dioxide."E Although the Public Advocate cites two docu- _
ments as a basis for this aspect of the contention, no nexus 32/ See FSAR S2.4.2.2. To obtain a maximum water level for design purposes, this hypothetical, " worst case" hurricane must pass over a very narrowly defined curved path,. south and west of the Delaware ectuary, circling in a precise manner to cause the maximum winds to drive up the' estuary and maximize the wave run-up at- the Station.
! 33/ -These Regulatory Guides implement various industry designed standards such as ANSI N170 and shore protection criteria issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
1 34 / It is noted that the desian of the plant to acccmmodate
~
the design basis storm fo'r the facility was considered in the hearing at the construction permit stage.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-74-79, 8 AEC 745, 751 (1974).
'35/ Contentions at 7.
L
---,-_.w _ , _ , . _ , _ _ , , m- ., . , .. --
or relevance to Hope Creek is alleged. Thus, in the Nation-al Academy of Sciences report, Changing Climate (October 21, 1983), it is estimated that a global warming of 3 to 4*C (p.
2, 36, 48, 78) over the next 100 years will result in a global rise in ocean level of approximately 70 cm. or 2.3 feet (M.). The report concludes that this rise in water level would be a slow, gradual increase over this period due to thermal e,xpansion of ocean waters and melting of polar land ice. Therefore, the estimated overall global increase in water level over the next 43 years (and the Hope Creek operating period) would be approximately 1 foot.
The allegation by the Public Advocate that a general global warming trend might affect Hope Creek is the rankest . _ _ _ _
kind of speculation. Assuming arguendo that the postulated global uarming trend would cause an increase in water levels, the increase of 1 foot is insignificant by any standard. Moreover, the Public Advocate has not even alleged that such a negligible increase would adversely affect Artifical Island. In any event, the impact of a global warming trend upon nuclear power stations is at best a generic problem which need not and should not be reviewed in a specific adjudication. Even a cursory review of the FSAR demonstrates that this contention lacks any basis.
Historical data for the past century indicates that the highest water level observed near the site is Elevation s
--_-_____m_ _ _ _ . _ _ _
97.5' during a tidal flood storm in 1950.3_6,/ The maximum stillwater design level is Elevation 113.8'.37/ Additional flood protection is provided above the maximum stillwater design level to protect against the highest wave run-up.38/
Therefore, a 1 foot increase in sea level would be insignificant, given the conservative design water level criteria utilized for Hope Creek. This contention lacks specificity and basis and should be denied.
I Management Competence V.
, This contention states that Public Service Electric and Gas Company must demonstrate that "it has fully resolved-the management implications of the Salem events,"E such that it is technically qualified to safely operate the Hope Creek _
facility. The Public Advocate asks the Board to take official notice of the NRC's investigation and orders regarding the failure of reactor trip circuit breakers to open automatically so as to trip the Salem, Unit I reactor on February 22 and February 25, 1983. In other words, the Public Advocate is seeking to relitigate in this proceeding determinations already made by the Commission in Salem.
36/ This aopears in FSAR Reference 2.4-18 at page 2.4-76 of the FSAR. It is reflected in FSAR Fig. 2.4-3.
3_7,/ This figure was utilized by the NRC in licensing Salem.
See Salem FSAR Question 2.25 (Amendment 18).
3_8_/ See FSAR S2.4.2.2.
39/ Contentions at 10.
As the Board may be aware, the Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, issued a pertinent Order Modifying License Effective Immediately on May 6, 1983. In this order, the Director noted that the Company had submitted its Corrective Action Program related to the circuit breaker failures.SI The Director further determined that the proposed actions would assure continued safe operation of the Salem facility,41/ and required implementation of the i measures to which the Company had voluntarily committed
, itself.SI On April 29, 1983, the Director denied--a-pet-i-tion--under 10 C.F.R. 52.206 by the same petitioner, the Dublic Advocate, seeking to initiate an enforcement proceeding regarding these events.43/ In that decision, the. Director noted the preparation of a Staff Safety Evaluation Report (April 29, 1983), which considered the Salem events, inter alia, from the perspective of management evaluation.b/ The 40/ Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, " Order Modifying License Effective Immediately" at 2 (May 6, 1983).
41/ Id. at 3.
42/ Id. at 4.
M/ Public Service Electric and Gas Comoany (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), DD-83-6, 17 NRC 713 (1983).
44/ Id. at 715.
I 1
~ 21 -
Director stated that the Company's actions and Staff findings adequately resolved these concerns as regards the Public Advocate's desire to litigate management issues:
The findings by the staff encompass the areas of concern identified by the petitioner. The Licensee has submitted sufficient information and taken or proposed sufficient actions for the staff to adequately review and . resolve its concerns arising out of the Salem February 22 and 25, 1983 events.M/
On June 1, 1983, the Commission determined that it would not
- undertake sua sconte review of the Director's Decision.
In essence, this contention seeks to litigate the Salem management issues which the Public Advocate unsuccessfully asserted in its Section 2.206 petition in the hope of establishing some nexus to the operation ~of~the Hope Creek facility. As the Commission held in Shearon Harris, however, its adjudicatory boards are delegated limited jurisdiction to conduct a particular " proceeding," which jurisdiction is narrowly defined by the notice of an opportunity for hearing.46/ In effect, the Public Advocate 45/ Id. at 716.
46/ Carolina Power and Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4), CLI-80-12, 11 MRC 514, 517 (1980). In that case, the Commission determined that the boards' jurisdiction over the construction permit proceeding did not authorize them to . order a hearing or direct the Staff's activities with regard to management qualifications at the operating license stage. Here, by comparison, the two distinct " proceedings" even involve different facilities.
seeks to circumvent the earlier decision by the Director, undisturbed by the Commission, denying the hearing on Salem management issues. The presiding Licensing Board in this proceeding lacks jurisdiction to collaterally litigate such questions collaterally.
Moreover, the proposed contention is devoid of any nexus or specificity as regards any alleged management deficiencies for Hope Creek. No issue has been taken with any of the statements in FSAR SS13 and 17 or with the responses by Applicants on management questions submitted to the NRC Staff on July 8 and-Octcber 20rl403. As-the-Board is aware, management and staff personnel for the operation of the Hope Creek facility will be different than for Salem, except at the highest corporate levels. The proposed contention does not indicate any familiarity with the statement of technical qualifications of managerial and supervisory staff for Hope Creek operations (FSAR Table 13.1-4) or the Nuclear Department Management and technical services and support personnel (FSAR Table 13.1-1). Thus, the Public Advocate has wholly failed to specify what, if any, " reform of corporate policies, procedures and personnel"EI is necessary for Hope Creek, and has failed
{/ Cantentions at 10.
}
I to allege any bases for such alleged deficiencies.S/ The proposed contention is therefore beyond the jurisdiction of this Board and, in any event, wholly lacking in the requisite specificity and bases.
VI. Environmental Qualifict. tion of Safety-Related Equipment This proposed contention asserts that Applicants have ,
not demonstrated that safety related equipment will be environmentally qualified so as to assure compliance with a General Design Criteria 1, 2 and 4 of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A. The Public Advocate cites applicable regu-lations, NUREG's and Staff guidance documents relating to environmental qualification of safety-related equipment, components and systems . - Nowhere ,- however, does the Public Advocate allege that the Environmental Qualification Program outlined in FSAR S3.ll, as amplified in Applicant's Response to Question 270.2 (Amendment 2, October 1983), is insufficient under existing regulatory requirements.
Instead, the Public Advocate simply notes that " Applicants have not as yet performed EQ testing," and asserts that "it
'-48/ Certainly, the Staff's request for additional information is not a basis for any litigable management issue. For example, its request that the FSAR be amended to reflect changes agreed upon by the NRC in compliance with the Director's Order of May 6, 1983 is no " basis" for a proper contention.
It is also noted that the faulty circuit breaker responsible for the Salem ATWS is not utilized in the Hope Creek facility.
_j
is unlikely that the (Alpplicants will be able to meet the criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.70 and 1.89 (or an acceptable alternative) and IE Bulletin 79-01B."E As disct:,ased previously, such unwarranted ~ conjecture does hot give rise to any admissible issue.
As stated in FSAR S3.11, Applicants have committed to meet all requirements for environmental qualification of safety-related equipment pursuant to the regulations and standards cited by the Public Advocate. -
The Public Advocate acknowledges that the Staff's determination of compliam.e with these requirements-will depend-on--informa-tion to be furnished subsequently.51/
R/ Contentions at 14.
50,/ NUREG-0588, for example, requires applicants to address possible synergisms. See 10 C.F.R. S50.49 (e) (7) . FSAR SS3.11.2.7.3 and 3.11.2.7.4 address synergisms. The NSSS Class 1E equipment identified by Applicants as required to perform their design safety functions in normal, abnormal, accident and post-accident environments (FSAR S3.11.1.1.1) will be qualified using the methodology described in the GE Licensing Topical -
Report NEDE-24326-1-P, approved by the NRC in a memorandum dated July 14, 1983 from J.P. Knight to F.J. Miraglia. See FSAR S3.11.2.1. No allegation is made that this methodology is insufficient not in full compliance with regulatory standards.
-51/ See Contentions at 16. In this regard, the Public Advocate's citation of the Staff's letter to Applicants, dated August 10, 1983, involves no litigable issue. In answering the letter, Applicants stated its intent to submit a comprehensive report for environmental qualification of electrical equipment in full compliance with NUREG-0588 and 10 C.F.R. 50.49. A preliminary summary report will be submitted in (Footnote Continued) i
Accordingly, the Public Advocate has failed to allege any aspect of the Hope Creek Environmental Qualification Program which will not meet all regulatory requirements and standards. No basis for the general assertion that
. compliance is "unlikely" has been shown. Although it is understandable that such specificity is lacking since the results of the Applicants' Environmental Qualification Program cannot and have not yet been completed, the Appeal Board and Commission decision in Catawba prohibit the conditional acceptance of contention subject to later myecifi sticn. This vary vague end-- premature-contention--
should therefore be rejected.
VII.. Effects of Radiological Releases In this contention, the Public Advocate asserts that Applicants have f ailed to address the environmental impact of potential releases - from the Hope Creek facility during normal, transient and accident conditions. Notwithstanding the - multifaceted. subparts of this contention, there is no allegation of any significant change since the construction permit stage regarding environmental impacts attributable to radioactive releases from Hope Creek.
Inasmuch as the FES at the construction permit stage fully. considered radiological impacts of routine operations (Footnote Ccntinued)
September 1984. See Applicants' Response to Question 270.2 (Amendment 2, October 1983).
-(FES 55.2) as well as accidental releases (FES 57), it is incumbent upon the Pub' Advocate to demonstrate signifi-cantly new informatxt which would affect the earlier analyses before this issue may be litigated. It is not sufficient for an intervenor simply to critici:ce an EROL as insufficient in detail.NI Even assuming that this issue could properly be raised at the operating license stage, the bases cited by the Public Advocate, for example, the 1972 BEIR Report of the National Academy of Sciences, only serve to demonstrate that these we-H-understood-impacts-+re-gener-ic-and-raise no_.. issue unique to Hope Creek.- ! Further, the AEC concluded in the Hope Creek FES:
The AEC staff has estimated the probable radionuclide releases from the Hope Creek Station based upon experience with comparable operating reactors and an evaluation of the radwaste system. M/
Evaluating radiological impact ' to man based upon average
- annual dose-to the population, the AEC concluded:
Using conservative assumptions, the total man-rem from all effluent 52/ Moreover, the regulations themselves provide that the EROL need not repeat matters previously covered at the construction permit stage. 10 C.F.R. 551.21.
-53/ " Routine releases" constitute a generic problem and, as such, may not properly be considered in this proceeding. See Boston Edison Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), LDP-81-3, 13 NRC 103, 209-10 (1981).
M/ FES.55.2.2.1.
1 I
pathways, received by the estimated-1980 l population of 5,400,000 persons who will live within a 50 mile radius of Hope Creek, would be about 18 man-rem per year. By comparison, an annual total of abc'st 700,000 man-rem is delivered to the same population as a result of the average natural background dose rate of about 0.125 rem per year in the vicinity of the plant. Operation of Hope Creek will then be an extremely minor contrib-utor to the radiation dose that persons living in the area normally receive from natural background radiation.g/
No basis for reevaluating radioactive doses to the individu-
- al or their impact has been shown.E Moreover, the con-tention fails to allege any facts establishing that the Hope ,
Creek f acility will not meet the ALARA requirements of 10 l C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I or the effluent limitations in 10
~ '
C.F.R.~Part 20.~ cr__ _
The only specific points raised by this proposed contention are without merit. First, the Environmental Report does contain a projected dose analysis regarding occupational exposures. See Response to Question E471.6 5
(Amendment 1, August 1983) 27/- Second, the Public M/ FES 55.2.2.6.
56/ In fact, it should be noted that the AEC specifically considered the 1972 Beir Report. See FES S5.2.1.3 at
- p. 5-20.
57/ Although included in FSAR 512.4.1.3 per the Standard Review Plan, there is no requirement under NEPA that ,
occupational exposures for BWR plants other than Hope Creek be considered. NEPA merely requires the NRC to consider environmental impacts actributable to the (Footnote Continued)
+m-a -L 4 u-AM n--- n -n _ - s,- ------ n
~
' Advocate's concern for detection of airborne radioactivity, i.e., upstream placement of HEPA filters, has been fully addressed in Applicants' Response to-Question E471.3 (Amend-ment 1, August 1983). No challenge to the adequacy of this information has been made.
The alleged failure to assess the effect of routine releases to children in utero is frivolous. As stated, it was determined in the 1974 FES that routine releases would be- extremely low compared to background radiation. No new
'significant information has been advanced to challenge this conchien == to-the e-brpic-population in particular.
The proposed contention also asserts that Applicants have not adequately considered the fcod ingestion pathway.
This impact was fully considered at the construction permit stage. See FES 55.2.1.3 (dose rate estimates for aquatic-and terrestrial biota) and 55.2.2.5 (estimated dose to man from ingestion pathway). In the latter section, the AEC m ' conclude 3 that "the resultant total-body dose to the population from the consumption of aquatic foods was estimated to l e 0.3 man-rem /yr." See also EROL . SS3.5. 2.4 and 5.2.4.
The final aspect of this proposed contentions pertains to. radioactive releases from a fuel handling or loss of (Footnote Continued) construction and operation of the facility for which a permit or license is sought.
t w- - , . ,e- e-.,.-, _-,.-,.--s- - , m-%., ,,,r- - . , - - , - , - , , , . . . , . , - ,,,,,.,w, - - , ~ . . . - , - ..%-
coolant accident. To the contrary, loss of coolant acci-dents (previously categorized as Class 8 accidents) were specifically considered in Hope Creek FES $7.1. Transporta-tion accidents, including fuel handling accidents, were considered in FES 57.2. These matters are also properly described in the EROL 57, which properly refers to Table S-4 as incorporated in 10 C.F.R. Part 51.b Finally, in Appendix C to the - EROL, Applicants discussed the potential radiological consequences of severe accidents previously
- categorized as Class - 9 accidents by the NRC. The Public Advuuste has failed to--address any of these sources or to specify reasons why they inadequately describe the potential impacts of accidental releases.
VIII. Cost / Benefit Analysis
'In this contention, the Public Advocate asserted that Applicants have not presented an accurate and complete statement of the . cost and benefits associated with the p
operation of Hope Creek. The particular items discussed,
( however, do not reflect any inaccuracy or incompleteness in the Hope Creek cost-benefit analysis. In commenting.on EROL l
S8.1.1, the Public Advocate has simply confused production
. cost savings from Hope Creek (i.e., the cost of producing f
electricity with Hope Creek over the cost for the same power l
l 58/ Any attempt to litigate the contents of Table S-4 would~, of course, constitute an impermissible challenge i to the NRC's regulations.
I L
without Hope Creek) with total net cost to the ratepayer for the power. The total net cost to the ratepayer, the subject of the testimony by Mr. Morris,E includes capital costs of_ plant construction, i.e., " sunk costs" not considered at the- operating license stage. See Consumers Power Company (liidland Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-63, 16 NRC 571, 586-87 ( ); Catawba, supra, LBP-82-16, 15 NRC at 584.
There is no inconsistency between cost savings attributable to operation of Hope Creek and subsequent rate increases.
In the next item, the Public Advocate criticizes the choice-of-capacity factor utilized in EROL Table 8.1-1.b The Appeal Board in Peach Bottom hel6 .nat an allegation of unrealistic plant capacity factors has no bearing at the operating license stage.61/ At the construction permit stage, capacity factor estimates used by the applicant are significant, for example, "in the consideration of alterna-tive modes of generation in the cost / benefit analysis" to establish "that the substitution of nuclear for more 5_9) See Contentions at 26.
[ -60/ It is noted that calculation of the average capacity l factors listed in the year-end reports of the NRC Licensed Operating Reactors Status Summary Reports
("NRC Graybook") (1977-81) for larger than 850 megawatt BWR's yields a 65 percent capacity factor for BWR's in general.
l (Peach Bottom Atomic M/ Philadelchia Electric Company, Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-389, 5 NRC 727, 732 (1977).
L
expensive fossil-fueled operation provides significant benefits even when operating at relatively low capacity factors,"SI or showing that the facility will be capable of producing the amount of electricity predicted.6_3,/ At the operating license stage, however, consideration of need for power and alternative sources is expressly prohibited by 10 C.F.R. 551.53(c).
A somewhat convoluted argument is made challenging the statement of an economic benefit in taxes paid by Applicants based upon revenues produced by the sale of electricity from Hope-Creek. See EROL 58.1.2.1. The Public Advocate argues that such revenues should be considered as an economic cost under ER S8.2.2. While tax revenue information is requested by the Staff,b tax revenues may not be considered as a benefit in striking the ultimate cost / benefit ratio. Yer.rs ago, in p rmont Yankee the Appeal Board held:
[T]he secondary benefits listed in the FES (e. g , local taxes and local employ-ment) were mentioned only for informa-tional purposes and did not play a part in the decisior to proceed with the proposed project . . . . Because many of 62/
Duke Power Company (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-13, 9 NRC 489, 510 (1979).
g/ Pennsvlvania Pcwer & Light Company (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-387 CL and 50-388 OL, " Memorandum and order on Summary Disposition Motions" (November 2, 1981) (slip op. at 24-26).
-64/ See ' " Environmental Standard Review Plans," NUREG-0555 at 5.8.2-5 and 10.4.1-3 to -5 (May 1979).
the " secondary benefits" consist of transfer payments resulting in offset-ting costs and benefits, we agree with the staff and [intervenor] that they have no place in the overall evaluation of the appropriateness of the proj-ect.65_/
Each aspect of this contention is legally insufficient and should be denied.
IX. Decommissioning This contention seeks to litigate Applicants' compli-ance with the policy of the State of New Jersey for decom-missioning the Hope Creek facility. While Applicants
- - strongly differ with the Public Advocate's interpretation of CAFRA Permit CA No.74-014, there is no legal basis for the NRC to determine whose interpretation is correct.
Just as the Licensing Board invited Applicants to pursue its challenge to the intervenor status of the Public Advocate in the appropriate State courts because the Board did not deem it "either necessary or desirable to convert this proceeding into a judicial forum to interpret New 6_5 / Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-179, 7 AEC 159, 177 (1974). See also Public Service Company of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-471, 7 NRC 477, 509 n.58 (1978); Illinois Power Company (Clinton Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2), ALAB-340, 4 NRC 27, 49 (1976); Aricona Public Service Companir (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3),
ALAB-336, 4 NRC 3, 4 (1976).
- 33 m Jersey statutes,"56_/ it is equa!.ly true that the Board need not embroil itself in this particular disagreement. b As 66/ Hope Creek, " Notice of Special Prehearing Conference,"
supra at 5.
67/ The Public Advocate cites Condition No. 21 of the permit regarding submission of "a plan subject to DEP approval . . . to physically dismantle the facility
. . . . On July 30, 1976, Public Service Electric and Gas Company submitted a " Preliminary Decommissioning Plan," which " summarizes a decommissioning plan which could be. utilized." The preliminary plan emphasized:
O To establish, at this time, specific plans and procedures to be employed in decommissioning the plant nearly half a century in the future would be unrealistic. In addition, the present policy .of the NRC with respect to decommissioning as expressed in Regulatory Guide 1.86 recognizes four different alternatives for retiremont of nuclear reactor facilities, all of which are acceptable to the NRC. To foreclose the use of those or other yet to be developed options by present commitment could, in the long term, eliminate .the most socially' and environmentally desirable decommissioning program to be employed.
It must be emphasized that any actual l decommissioning plan must be developed based on the environmental, l
socioeconomic, technological and l
l regulatory conditions existing at the time when the work is to be undertaken.
Preliminary Decommission Plan at 1-2 (July 1976).
Inasmuch as Applicants believe that the disputed interpretation-is beyond the jurisdiction of the NRC to resolve and irrelevant to the issuance of an operating license for Hope Creek, this document has not been submitted. If requested, however, Applicants would be (Footnote Continued)
the Appeal Board aptly held in Perry: "Our job is to decide the Federal issues before us."S It succinctly added in Tyrone: "The requirements of State law are beyond our ken; such matters are for the State regulatory commission."N
.The Supreme Court recently reiterated this important distinction, stating:
Congress, in passing the 1954 (Atomic Energy] Act . . . intended that the federal government should regulate the radiological safety aspects involved in the construction and cperation of a
. nuclear plant, but that the States retain their traditional responsibility in the field of regulating electrical utilities for determining questions of need, reliability, cost and other related state concerns.H/
These holdings govern the proposed contention and require its denial.
Even so, there is no explanation as to why the dis-cussion in EROL S5.8.2 regarding possible decommissioning techniques fails to meet existing Commission criteria and (Footnote Continued) happy to furnish the Board with a copy. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection never questioned the adequacy of this submicsion.
68/ Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 748 (1977).
60/ Northern States Power Company (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1), ALAB-464, 7 NRC 372, 375 (1978).
~
70/ Pacific Gas and Electric Comoanv v. State Enerav Resources Conservation and Develocment Commission, 51 U.S.L.W. 4449, 4453 (U.S. April 20, 1983).
guidance regarding alternative decommissioning techniques.
To the contrary, it has been recognized that decommissioning is a subject for which the Commission has not yet specified regulatory requirements. It has been left to individual applicants. to develop plans under one of several equally acceptable alternatives.E There is no allegation in the contention that the alternatives designated by Applicants in EROL 55.8.2 fail to comply with existing guidance under Regulatory Guide 1.86. See also NUREG-0436 (Rev. 1), " Plan for Reevaluation of NRC Policy on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities" (December 1978).
As the Licensing Board in Suscuehhnna observed, current NRC regulations in no way " prescribe or proscribe any particular methods of decommissioning (or even require that a particular method be identified)." EI The Board therefore denied a contention which sought to raise "the specification of the particular details of the decommissioning method, or imposition of a particular method of financing the 71/
~
See 43 Fed. Reg. 10371 (March 13, 1978), which lists
'four acceptable alternatives: (1) mothballing; (2) in-place entombment; (3) removal of radioactive components and dismantling; and (4) conversion to a new nuclear-system or a fossil-fuel system.
H/- Pennsylvania Power & Licht Comcany (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-6, 9 NRC 291, 313-14 (1979).
r
decommissioning of the facility."23,/ Finally, the assertion in the contention that compliance with the State permit
" raises serious concern"El for other matters is too vague and does not state any litigable issue.EI Accordingly, this contention should be denied in its entirety.
X. Cooling Tower Operations This contention asserts that Applicants have not adequately considered cooling tower plume impacts. The Public Advocate acknowledges, as he must, that the whole
" range of environmental cost, impacts and uncertainties" related to cooling tower operation was considered at the construction permit stage.E/ Here again, no significant new information is cited as a basis for considering cooling tower operations at the operating license stage. Moreover, it is obvious that any impacts attributable to cooling tower operations at Hope Creek have been reduced by half, given the deletion of Unit 2.
t l
73/ Id. at 314. See also Duke Power Company (William B.
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) , LBP-79-13, 9 l NRC 489, 527-28 (1979); Public Service Company of l Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-78-26,
! 8 NRC 102, 168-170 (1978); Northern States Power l Company (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1), LBP-77-71, 6 NRC 1232, 1251 (1977).
M/ Contentions at 34.
3/ Limerick, supra, LBP-82-43A, 15 NRC at 1510-11.
76/ Contentiens at 35, citing FES 56.1.1 (precperational monitoring programs for thermal and meteorological (Footnote Continued)
I
The first specific item of concern is the esthetic impact of the visual plume. The Public Advocate misetates the height of the cooling tower as "about 800 feet,"EI when in fact the overall height is 512 feet.EI Second, the Public Advocate has confused plume visibility with plume dissipation. It is the latter concept, not the former, which is the subject of_the statement in EROL 5.1.4.6 that "the vast majority of visible plumes from natural-draft cooling towers do not persist downwind for more than 1.0 kilometer (0.6 mile)." Contrary to the Public Advocate's assertion that visible impacts have not been considered, EROL $5.1.4.9 states that such esthetic effects will be negligible, referring to consideration of this issue at the construction permit stage. See FES S5.1.2. See also Hope Creek, supra, LBP-74-79, 8 AEC at 758. In Limerick, the Board held that visual impacts of the cooling tower plume could not be litigated at the operating license stage.EI (Footnote Continued) effects of operation). See also FES S5.1 (impact of heat dissipation system).
i E/ Contentions at 35. Apparently, the Public Advocate has L misinterpreted information in _ EROL S3.4.4 that the L " cooling tower stands approximately 244 meters (800 feet) northeast of the turbine building."
H/ EROL Table 3.4-3.-
'--79/ Limerick, supra, LBP-82-43A, 15 NRC 1423, 1513 (1982).
The peripheral issue of " psychological stress" related to the visible plume as discussed in the denial of that contention could not, in any event, be considered.
(Footnote Continued)
The other chief aspect of this contention relates to consideration'of salt drift from. cooling towers. Again, no basis is shown for challenging the discussion of this information in EROL S5.1.4.4. Nor has the Public Advocate cited any significant new information not considered at the construction permit stage in - FES 55.1.1, where the NRC concluded that salt deposition impacts upon land use and terrestrial life forms would be below any level of concern.
The Public Advocate's assertion that the discussion of salt deposition, cloud enhancement, shadowing, and hazing in the 1974 FES and the current EROL "must be taken with the proverbial grain of salt"80,/ raises no litigable issue. b
.This contention is wholly lacking in any specificity or bases and fails to allege any new, significant information
.not considered at the construction permit stage. It should therefore be denied.
(Footnote Continued)
Metropolitan Edison Company v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 51 U.S.L.W. 4371 (April 19, 1983). See also Carolina Power'& Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket No. 50-400 OL and 50-401 OL, " Memorandum and Order" (January 11, 1983)
(slip op. at 6).
80,/ Contentions at 36.
-81/ The Public Advocate refers to EROL Question E451.4 (August 1983), requesting substantiation of the statements .made' in EROL 55.1.4.7 concerning cloud enhancement and shadowing but fails to allege -any inadequacy in the Applicants' Response amending Section 5.1.4.7.
Finally, the Public Advocate asserts that the Staff noted "an apparent inconsistency" between the discussion in FES 55 and EROL 55.1.4.1 regarding' ground fogging and icing.
Apparently, this refers to EROL Question E451.5 (August 1983), where the Staff requested additional discussion on the frequency of these conditions resulting from Hope Creek cooling tower operations. The Staff did not note any
" inconsistency," but simply requested further information.
In any event, the Public Advocate has failed to specify any inadequacy in the Applicants' Response.
Conclusion For the reasons discussed more fully above, the proposed contentions of the Public Advocate are wholly deficient under the rules of the NRC governing their admis-sibility. They should therefore be denied.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.
Troy . onner, Jr.
Robert M. Rader Counsel for the Applicants November 18, 1983
'5
-+- -
Depte.ter 2rt, 197%
'!'irector of f:ucicar Peacter Rest:1?ition U.'i. ':ucIc.ar I;ogulatory Cc =iscion L ".'a shing ton , D.C. 205M I 'N..E M. .c_. ,'3 Centle: ten - OCT 021979
,L I,..,e,. C .. . .. ,u.
4.. ,, I & .. ..C ,.. . .. 1 0 .... .L
. E. o'v . p'.yd.
M
~.;,s
- n. rg-*g r> 5
. e * * * .
a./.gg.* e,/m& t.. ag.e y=
t . .
- f% ** i. t. t-* t . 4 . a **...:.
et.a.g p.<*. =. -=.= v.
.. g.. I c h.
.ry t.,e. ,3C*. l o= =. ,. = c . e.e.. . . . , t..-* .. u t
-TI:5 USC Cr AUST2:i1 TIC m'AI:iLCSG STP.CL I:: LOILI!;G WATOR KrACTOR TACILI' PICS
,s co..i.n,. ;C Cc, ..
.e. . r . . v. c.L ( . .. .C ) .r., . ~. . .,R ,. O
. .. ( .3 )
It , L. T~TL ( P 5".f r.. )
FOTIPUT.T'Y 17, 19'M (3) R. y...-.
s
.. ( ,c .....a .- ) t e. 4 ..n >. ~w filtC;; APT;IL -23, 1979 On Febr :n t / 17, l'77", vou forsrar<!cd your ata ff po:sition,
.aforence 3, c: th: use of suctn.-ti tic s tai .less s:cci in cini re ,uccted that n revie!- a t oilf r : .n t r : ut ilit M Our rest rgcent cerracpondenre vit.'
recponco to I:?. rJ.0-C313.
- v. c 2,
- '.oference :', in? tcated thst out it .:-onse would t.) pro- .
v i:k .* in Oepte.ibor 1979. -
~
B. love given consiJorable attention to the area of citi-c.: tier. of . in~.nre;ranular strena carrecien crachir.7 ( IG."C ) fe t'a :ca: Croc!: C,rterating 9tation an i Ev.'e Men f,'.11ouin ;
tuchnicr3 2. de. c1ms.'ents within the in.hmtry to ensure our '
r.:itIqation preecstures are ci;rrent.
l
- cacuros which have' be.en tS:en include the folleviny (appliert-l
! bla occff pacitica nu:ter icitous ut. ateJ ent ) :
- 1. i.,tainless ateel piping in the ECCS cycts.-.s has been replecci with carbon secol (':nc position 11.1.) w C1.'. r.n 1 stainicas steel procenn pipiny pur-
'! . t,11 7.N'n III
. . . .,. , . , r..-.
I " .. * . . . . . ,
I \ ,"* ' ; :.
~~
l 1
- 1 3 '. q i r - u: 1. cec r.r r.:-cc.- m.:t tel 4 0r 2 . l . ' '. : wie a "
l .
. : ; .- in :. e r.:a.-~9r c s ,ir ". prc'< tre 2 c ~~-r .
I- '. : -: . 1 2';5 " l i ^'I " * ' ' ' '
. .' f 5 ! . ' i . . 1. ' . .'. - D f - P. . 4 c me.r.ict;r, S r .? ' i r --': m ' l ' y *. ): :.* a rc::i'.^c t - N L.7 M c ::
.I(it c Gm! in .*tt id*0 M.3 1 3..b*, _
hnd 2: I*:!i*.i090 C F. T" 'M T:M OtiVul Y. -
FMuidt nry Cuiitra 1. 21 and
- .v):tlar.n:,- th:10c posit f ant. ravinc .:r. '. surcracdo t.h000 t
I i
' cuh2itted in t.ho P':An (7,n:ndnent 17). '
(!!PC rosition h IIol) 'l h c In order to cini11:e the nunbor of stannant lines, the
' recircuIntion :r stem by~esa lir c and the coa, trol red .
driia nycten return lins have been oli::! ...te3. (!mc i-f pocit. ion II.1 nnd V.1) ( ;
S We rt' circulation ayaten pl.-.inq hao boon chiopm1 to n .
fseility for corrosion 'rosiotant cloddi.*vy of field ve1<t ends and furnace unlutien he.4e treatnent prior to in-stallation. (T:3C position II.2) f a
- g Layout provisions are being r.ade to assure access to .. ;
Class 1 veleis for incervice inspectien. (MPC position III.2.)
- 7. 1. re.7ctor coolant $
hse boon de':igned' to prossure 9.nhance b.-,undcry lonk :!ntofection tbc r'iccovor/ :/ ,te :'.
unidenti-
. fled loshage thet nsy include through .in11 crache de-velop.-d in e.::te:titic st.tinica: st. col pipin 7. (::P.C resi-tion (III.J. A. (2) 3 -
O. ;.n ov.31ontic.n is continuing en the technical foaalhility a '
and a.socin el ccr.1 c f Li- Olling a: 32cm n ccatrol.
. .~: : c - .
Prcv i c i.- a .1 f., th ; de c i.;n a' A 1, co :: have d on
. .tdc to c lic'.1 inctalle. tion s' 2 13tcr dsic, if docced j
pproprinto. (!:':C Mci tion V.2) 1.*o t ali u v o that the abcVe mitigation t.b uures vill nini.ize ;
thu :u:atcptihility to ctruse corrosion crackiv. ; cf .aucteni+_1c ct . icloss ctel in the reacher ccole.n T.rennur.' beu%,r f. 10 ,
i ennt'.nue to onitor the recclt: of the :C rino Crac% ,I t.. .:d y C ro .i., .i n 1 evaluato snf furt' cr fi-Jin a for their ;
- .pp lic'.1
- 11 i.ty tn the !:c.r0 Creu?, Concrating '.:.2 tion. ,
n
/ ,
Vory,,-
/ /trul / g/ps ,
Y-] y, '
T 4
/ R. L. Mitti f con,ral f:ananer -
j/V Licensina and Enviros..-ent
/,e . . . . - . . . ,
..:: .V, . .2 : :
.. : :::. '.- 1 , :. . : . . -
- c :.w.
It , :. , y:t- ' ~P et .. r-'. M- ~ " - ~ : .- U G -.....- - r
- '.t u -:.: < ' - - :! ': - . ~ - - -
. ;':- r i 8. n , Jr.
"7 , . .:- ] ! t y
- e:. ;ca r-e . ,
Pr o j . cor e. . ~ r. : r , - : o ne C ca?
O!11 1/2 -
1 l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Public Service Electric and )
Gas Company )
) Docket No. 50-354-OL (Hope Creek Generating )
Station) -)
. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Answer to
-Proposed Contentions of the Public Advocate of-the State of New Jersey," dated November 18, 1983 in the captioned matter has been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 18th day of November, 1983:
- Marshall E. ' Miller Atomic Safety and Chairman .
Licensing Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
-Licensing Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C.. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
~
- Dr. Peter A. Morris U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Panel Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service
-Washington, D.C. 20555 Section Office of the Secretary
.
- Dr. James H. Carpenter U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and .
Commission Licensing Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Richard J. Goddard, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the Executive Legal Director Theodore C.fGranger U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Deputy Public' Advocate- Commission Department of the Public Washington, D.C. 20555 Advocate Division of Rate Counsel 744 Broad Street 30th Floor
~ Newark, New Jersey 07102
- Hand Delivery
2-Richard Fryling, Jr., Esq.
Associate General Counsel Public Service Electric &
Gas Company P.O. Box 570 (T5E)
Newark, NJ 07101 R. Williain Potter, Esq.
Assistant Public Advocate State.of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate CN 850 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 I
l$ . ll Robert M'. Rader I
i
(-
e
-e- - , - , - w +,-.c - + , ~ , , , , , , , , , , , - - , - - - , , - - ,
wn- ---- - - ---