ML20196A722

NRC Staff Response to Joint Contention of State of VT & Commonwealth of Ma.* Proposed Contention Should Be Admitted in Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20196A722
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	06/22/1988
From:	Hodgdon A NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#288-6584 OLA-2, NUDOCS 8806300092
Download: ML20196A722 (6)

Text

,

~' 5d June 22, 1988 00LKETED USNRC

-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 88 # 23 P4 :23 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD F

foChi i BRANC4 In the Matter of )

1 Docket No. 50-271-OLA-2 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER ) (Testing Requirements for CORPORATION ) ECCS and SLC Systems)

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power )

Statien) )

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO JOINT CONTENTION OF THE STATE OF VERMONT AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF PASSACHUSETTS I. JNTRODUCTION On June 13, 1988, in response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's (Board) Order of May 24, 1988, Petitioners the State of Vermont and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts submitted a proposed contention that theywishtolitigateinthisproceeding.1/ The Staff's response is set forth below.

II. DISCUSSION A. Standards Applicable to Proposed Contentions In order for petitioners' contentions to be admitted as matters in controversy, they must satisfy the Comission's requirement that the basis for the contention be set forth with reasonable specificity. 10 C.F.R.

Q2.714(b). Also, proposed contentions ri.ust fall within the scope of the

-1/ Joint Contention of the State of Vermont and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, June 13, 1988.

i 8806300092 800622 ADOCK 0500 1

{DR

issues set forth in the Notice of Hearing initiating the proceeding. 2_/

The purposes of the basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714 are (1) to assure that the contention in question raises a matter appropriate for adjudication in a particular proceeding, 3/ (2) to establish a sufficient foundation for the contention to warrant further inquiry into the subject matter addressed by the assertion and, (3) to put the other parties suffi-ciently on notice "... so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." See, Peach Bottom, at 20. From the standpoint of basis, it is unnecessary for the petition to detail the evidence that will be offered in support of each contention. Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973). Furthern' ore, in examining the contentions and their

-2/ Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167, 170 (1976). See, also, Commonwealth Edison Company (Carroll County Site), ALAB-601, 12 RRF 18, 24 (1980); Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant),

ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287, 289-290, n. 6 (1979).

3_/ A contention must be rejected where:

(a) it constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirements; (b) it challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (c) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the inter-venor's views of what applicable policies ought to be; l (d) it seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or (e) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.

See, Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, i

UnTts 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974).

1

bases, a licensing board should not reach the merits of the contentions.

Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 548 (1980); Duke Power Co.

(Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773-Transportation of Spent Fuel From Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station), ALAB-528, 9 NRC 146, 151 (1979); Peach Bottom, supra, at 20; Grand Gulf, supra, at 426.

As the Appeal Board instructed in Alabama Power Company (Joseph M.

Farley Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), AL/.B-182, 7 AEC 211, 216-217 (1974), in asserting the acceptability of a contention as a basis for granting intervention:

[t]he intervention board's task is to determine, from a scrutiny of what appears within the four corners of the contention as stated, whether (1) the requisite specificity exists; (2) there has been an adequate delineation of the basis for the conten-tion; and (3) the issue sought to be raised is cognizable in an individual licensing proceeding. (Footnotes omitted).

If a contention meets these criteria, the contention provides a foundation 1

for admission "irrespective of whether resort to extrinsic evidence might establish the contention to be insubstantial." Farley, supra, 7 AEC at 217. U The question of the contention's substance is for later l resolution - either by way of 10 C.F.R. $ 2.749 summary disposition prior to the evidentiary hearing "... or in the initial decision following the 1

l conclusion of such a hearing." Farley, supra, 7 AEC at 217. Thus, it is 1

incumbent upon petitioners to set forth contentions supported by bases

-4/ However, the proposed contention should refer to and address relevant documentation available in the public domain.... See, Cleveland l Electric Illuminating Company, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, l Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-24,14 NFC 175,181-185 (1981).

l l

I that are sufficiently detailed and specific to demonstrate that the issues they purport to raise are admissible.

B. The Proposed Joint Contention In their proposed joint contention, Vermont and Massachusetts assert that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the protection of the public health and safety ond of the environment in that the increase in risk of failure of the subject systems occasioned by the proposed elimina-tion of testing is not outweighed by any reduction in risk attributable to the testing changes proposed by the amendment. Joint Contention, at 1-2.

As basis for the proposed joint contention, Vermont and Massachusetts state, among other things, that the Applicant has not provided quantita-tive support for its assertion that testing the components adversely affects their reliability nor for its reliance on other testing programs to provide the assurance that the remaining safety components will operate as intended. Joint Contentien at 2. In the Staff's view, these state-ments provide an adequate basis for the proposed joint contention.

III. CCNCLUSION Petitioners have submitted a contention supported by a basis set forth with reasonable specificity. The Licensing Board should grant Petitioners' request that a hearing be held on the proposed application and admit the proposed joint contention for hearing.

Respectfully submitted,

( y& o CW Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day of June,1988

. DOLKETES une UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'88 JUN 23 P4 :23 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OFFICE U 5!Lrt W f In ths Matter of N NC VERFCNT YANKEE NUCLEAR Docket No. 50-271-0LA-2 POWER CORPORATION (Testing Requirements for

) ECCS and SLC Systems)

(VermontYankeeNuclearPower )

Stationi CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO JOINT CONTENTION OF THE STATE OF VERM0HT AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF PASSACHUSETTS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, or as indicated by two asterisks by express mail, this 22nd day of June,1988.

Charles Bechboefer, Esq. Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Neclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555* Washington, D.C. 20555*

Dr. James H. Carpenter George B. Dean, Esq.

Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Safety Unit U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of the Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20555* One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108**

Atomic Safety and Licensing Jay Gutierrez Board Panel Regional Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission USNRC, Region I Washington, D.C. 20555* '75 Allerdale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406*

David J. Mullett, Esq. R. K. Gad, III Special Assistant Attorney General Ropes and Gray Vermont Depart. of Public Service 225 Franklin Street 120 State Street Boston, MA 02110**

Montpelier, VT 05602**

Atomic Safety aiid Licensing Appeal Docketing and Service Section Board Panel Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555* Washington, D.C. 20555*

4-Adjudicatory File Atomic-Safety and Licensing Board Panel _ Docket U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555*-

t

[ '

y Ann P. Hodgdon (o c, y' Counsel for NRC Staff

_