ML20090A675

Answer to New Proposed Contention by Air & Water Pollution Patrol Re Gross Alpha.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20090A675
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	07/10/1984
From:	Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
OL, NUDOCS 8407120071
Download: ML20090A675 (11)

Text

,\\ N 9

ccu c7cn UNC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'g4 ';7L11 N0 :52 3

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of

)

)

Philadelphia Electric Company

)

Docket Nos. 50-352

)

50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO NEW PROPOSED CONTENTION BY AIR & WATER POLLUTION PATROL RELATING TO " GROSS ALPHA" Preliminary Statement On June 29, 1984, Philadelphia Electric Company

("Ap-plicant") received a proposed contention from Air & Water Pollution Patrol (Romano) asserting that "neither Applicant nor Staff have adequately studied whether or not routine turbine stack, or other releases of radioactive nuclides will result in exceeding the EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels

("MCL") for gross alpha, radium 226, and radium 228 "

The proposed contention also asserts that "[rlecent findings of gross alpha approaching the MCL of 5 pico curies indicate contribution from the reactor could result in closing many wells, particularly municipal wells in those areas within ten to fifteen miles from the Limerick reactor."b!

1/

40 C.F.R.

S141.15 actually states:

(Footnote Continued) 8407120071 840710 PDR ADOCK 05000352 o

PDR m/so

Applicant opposes admission of the proposed contention.

No basis is given for this vague contention, which is wholly lacking in any technical basis.

Nor has Mr. Romano even addressed, much less satisfied, the criteria under 10 C.F.R.

S2. 714 (a) (1) for admitting late contentions.

Accordingly, the contention should be denied.

Argument I.

Intervenor Romano has not Satisfied the Requirements for Admitting a Late Contention.

The late contention proposed by Mr. Romano may not be admitted unless the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

(" Licensing Board" or " Board") finds that, on balance, the five factors enumerated in 10 C.F.R. S2.714 (a) (1) ( f.) -(v) weigh in intervenor's favor.

Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041 (19 8 3 ). 2_/ The very failure of Mr. Romano even to address (Footnote Continued)

The following are the maximum contaminant levels for radium-226, radium-228, and gross alpha particle radioactivity:

(a) Combined radium-226 and radium-228

- SpCi/1.

(b)

Gross alpha particle activity (including radium-226 but excluding radon and uranium) - 15pCi/1.

2/

Preliminarily, intervenor has not even met the threshold requirement of actually stating a proposed contention.

The request should be denied on that basis alone.

It is certainly not the function of this Board (Footnote Continued)

q

. (

these

criteria, other than to baldly assert that the proposed contention "can be litigated without significant expansion of hearing or delay," warrants denial of the contention.3/

It is too late in the proceeding for Mr.

Romano to argue that he was unaware of the requirements to 1

address Section 2.714 criteria for the filing of a late contention.

The Board has discussed this requirement on a number of occasions, including several earlier orders specifically denying proposed late contentions sought by Mr.

Romano.A!

In any event, the motion fails to meet intervenor's burden to "af firmatively demonstrate" that he has met the criteria for lateness.E!

Initially, Mr.

Romano fails to indicate when this matter came to his attention or by what document or series of events the information became known to him.

Thus, there is absolutely no showing of " good cause" (Footnote Continued) to assimilate an intervenor's vague allegations into a litigable contention, especially at this late stage of the proceeding.

3/

Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2

and 3), ALAB-615, 12 NRC 350, 352 (1980).

See also Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear

Station, Unit No.

1),

CLI-83-25, 18 NRC

327, 331 (1983).

4/

See, e.g.,

Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating

Station, Units 1

and

2),

Docket Nos.

50-352-OL and 50-353-OL, " Memorandum and Order (Denying Air and Water Pollution Patrol's Petition for Additional Intervention Contention)" (April 12, 1983)

(slip op. at 3).

5/

Id.

~

-4_

for lateness, which is the paramount consideration.

Just as the Appeal Board noted in Midland, the petitioner here has

" offered no coherent or plausible excuse for the delay."5/

The surfacing of this contention at this advanced stage of the proceeding, when the Board and parties have completed hearings on the Limerick operating license applications, with the sole exception of offsite emergency planning, renders intervenor's tardiness even more significant.1/

When an intervenor is late without cause, he must make an especially " compelling showing" on the remaining four factors.E!

This, Mr. Romano has clearly failed to do so.

As to the second and fourth criteria for admitting late con-tentions, no particular showing has been made by Mr. Romano.

If intervenor was aware of this alleged condition for some time, or if the underlying information were available to him, it could have been brought to the attention of the NRC 6/

Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-624, 12 NRC

680, 682 (1980).

See also Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-384, 5 NL,2 612, 615 (1977); Duke Power Company (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and

3), ALAB-440, 6 NRC 642, 643 (1977); Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-431, 6 NRC 460, 462 (1977).

7/

See Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB-747, 18 NRC (November 15, 1983) (slip op. at 8).

8/

Mississippi Power & Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704, 16 NRC 1725, 1730 (1982).

Staff, e.g.,

during the period for public comments on the Draft Environmental Statement, which was issued in this proceeding in July 1983.

At most, these two factors are neutral on the question of admitting the late contention.

As the Appeal Board noted in the Summer proceeding, these two factors are to be given relatively lesser weight than the other factors and do not, standing

alone, justify admission of a late contention even if they weigh in favor of the intervenor.1/

On the third criterion, Mr. Romano has also failed to demonstrate that he could assist the Board in establishing a sound record on this issue.

In particular, he has failed to comply with the requirement of Grand Gulf that "(w] hen a petitioner addresses this criterion it should set out with as much particularity as possible the precise issues it plans to cover, identify its prospective witnesses, and summarize their proposed testimony." E No expertise in the area Mr. Romano seeks to litigate has been alleged.

More-over, based upon previous performance, intervenor has shown himself incapable of assisting the Board.

9/

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-642, 13 NRC 881, 895 (1981).

M/

Grand Gulf, supra, ALAB-704, 16 NRC at 1730.

See also WPPSS, supra, ALAB-747 (slip op. at 18) ; Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-743, 18 NRC 387, 399-400 (1983).

(

)

The fifth criterion for admitting late contentions likewise weighs against intervenor.

Contrary to Mr.

Romano's naked assertion, admitting the contention will inarguably broaden the issues and delay the proceeding.

Mr.

Romano would certainly request an extended discovery sched-ule and lengthy preparation time for hearings.

Given the already short schedule for issuing a Partial Initial Deci-sion in a timely manner, admission of a new contention at the eleventh hour, more than three years after contentions were initially submitted, would unavoidably cause serious delay prejudicial to the Applicant.EI Accordingly, Mr.

Romano has failed to satisfy the requirements for admission of his proposed late contention.

II.

The Proposed Contention Lacks Basis and Specificity.

Even assuming that the proposed late contention could be otherwise allowed, it should be denied as lacking the basis and specificity required by 10 C.F.R. 52.714(b).N

-11/

It is noted that the Appeal Board in Fermi held that this factor is governed by delay of the proceeding, not delay of operation of the facility.

Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2),

ALAB-707, 16 NRC

1760, 1765-66 (1982);

Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit

1),

LBP-83-30, 17 NRC 1132, 1146 (1983).

Moreover, admission of a late contention at this juncture could very well impinge upon the commencement of operation of Limerick, Unit 1.

M/

See e.g.,

Commonwealth Edison Company (Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1), LBP-82-52, 16 NRC 183, 193 (Footnote Continued)

[

t

. [

r t

No technical basis whatsoever is given for the unsupported

[

[

allegation that " routine turbine stack, or other uniden-i tified releases of radioactive nuclides will result in i

l exceeding the EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels" either alone

[

or in some combination with nuuides already allegedly l

t occurring in certain water supplies or that " contribution

{

l from the reactor could result in closing many wells."

There is no identification of the wells in question.

Furthermore, 1

i there is no assertion that Radium-226 and Radium-228 are even released from the Station. E/

Further, the proposed I

contention is unsupported by any evaluation or analysis

[

l which demonstrates that releases producing gross alpha j

activity approaching any limit will occur or how such t

f l

releases could possibly infiltrate water wells within a f

15-mile radius of Limerick.

In short, Applicant is at a j

t loss to understand how the discharge into the environment from the operation of Limerick will possibly cause the f'

j alleged impact.

f 3

i (Footnote Continued) i i

(1982) r Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear f

4 Power

Station, Unit

.),

L B P - 8 :. - 1 8,

14 NRC 71, 75 (1981); Offshore Power Systems (Manufacturing License I

for Floating Nuclear Power Plants), LBP-77-48, 6 NRC

[

249 (1977).

{

c M/

To the contrary, Table 11.3-1 of the FSAR indicates I

that no releases from these sources are expected.

The

{

stated basis for this table is NUREG-0016, Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and i

Liquid Effluents from Boiling Water Reactors (BWR-GALE I

Code),

which is based upon actual experience at operating nuclear plants.

[

1 1

h

l-,

t t !

!V i

l I

Conclusion l-For the reasons discussed above, AWPP's proposed late l

i contention should be denied.

i Respectfully submitted, i

I CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

{

h t

1 l

Troy B. Conner, Jr.

+

l Mark J. Wetterhahn f

l Nils N. Nichols t

Counsel for the Applicant l

5 July 10, 1984 l

5 k

L L

I l

i I

i l

t e

f r

I l

E l

t I

[

i l

i i

?

n,.-,

n.~.---. -,,.-

--.__._,,,,,,--,_,..,crn,..,_--

.,,.,,,,,,,__nn,,-,

,,.,,,,--, - n,,,,, !

t t

t i

s l

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ETO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'04 JR 11 i

In the Matter of

)

N0 34 :

)

It i

Philadelphia Electric Company

)

Docket Nos. 50-352r ;., d.

)

50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,

)

l Units 1 and 2)

)

l C_ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I

I hereby certify that copius of " Applicant's Answer to New Proposed Contention by Air & Water Pollution Patrol

[

Relating to ' Gross Alpha,'" " Applicant's Answer to Motion by Citizen Action in the Northeast for Certification to the Commission of its Financial Qualifications Contention,"

[

" Applicant's Objections to LEA's First and Second Sets of i

Interrogatories on Of fsite Emergency Planning Contentions,"

l Applicant's Answer to Limerick Ecology Action's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to i'

the Philadelphia Electric Company on Limerick Ecology Action's Admitted

'Off-Site' Emergency Planning j

Contentions," and " Letter to Maureen Mulligan from Mark J.

Wetterhahn" all dated July 10, 1984 in the captioned matter have been served upon the folicwing by deposit in the United States mail this 10th day of July, 1984:

1 l

Lawrence Brenner, Esq. (2)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel

[

Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 l

Docketing and Service Section t

Dr. Richard F. Cole Office of the Secretary i

Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l

Licensing Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Foshington, D.C.

20555 Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.

Counsel for NRC Staff Office r

Dr. Peter A. Morris of the Executive Atomic Safety and Legal Director Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 i

Washington, D.C.

20555 l

t i

6

.n- -

l r

t 4

Atomic Safety and Licensing Angus Love, Esq.

i Board Panel 107 East Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Norristown, PA 19401 Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.

t Sugarman, Denworth &

Philadelphia Electric Company Hellegers l

ATTN:

Edward G. Bauer, Jr.

16th Floor, Center Plaza i

Vice President &

101 North Droad Street General Counsel Philadelphia, PA 19107 2301 Market Street l

4 Philadelphia, PA 19101 Director, Pennsylvania f

l Emergency Management Agency Mr. Frank R. Romano Basement, Transportation 61 Forest Avenue and Safety Building Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mr. Robert L. Anthony Martha W. Bush, Esq.

Friends of the Earth of Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.

the Delaware Valley City of Philadelphia 106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Municipal Services Bldg.

Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 15th and JFK Blvd.

i Philadelphia, PA 19107 Charles W. Elliott, Esq.

[

Brose and Postwistilo Spence W. Perry, Esq.

1101 Building Associate General Counsel t

lith & Northampton Streets Federal Emergency Easton, PA 18042 Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W.,

Rm. 840 Ms. Maureen Mulligan Washington, DC 20472 Limerick Ecology Action P.O. Box 761 Thomas Gerusky, Director 762 Queen Street Bureau of Radiation

[

Pottstown, PA 19464 Protection t

j Department of Environmental Zori G. Ferkin, Esq.

Resourcen i

Asaistant Counsel 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Third and Locust Streets i

Governor's Energy Council Harrisburg, PA 17120 1625 N. Front Street l

Harrisburg, PA 17102 1

Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.

[

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory f

Commission 631 l' ark Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 i-l f

i

t

{

James Wiggins Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 47 Sanatoga, PA 19464 Timothy R.S. Campbell Director Department of Emergency Services 14 East Biddle Street West Chester, PA 19380

/

Ma(V J. Wetterhahn