ML20210T125
| ML20210T125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1986 |
| From: | Locke R PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-0985, CON-#486-985 86-536-07-LA, 86-536-7-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8610080310 | |
| Download: ML20210T125 (14) | |
Text
l N 00CKETED USHRC
~
1 -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gs act -6 P4 54 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
2 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 5EDERb.
3 -
4 In the Matter of )
)
5 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-133-OLA COMPANY ) (Decommissioning) 6
) ASLBP No. 86-536-07 LA (Humboldt Bay Power Plant, )
7 Unit No. 3) )
8 9
RESPONSE OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY TO PETITIONERS' SUPPLEMENT TO THE PETITION TO INTERVENE 10 IN LICENSE AMENDMENT PROCEEDINGS, REQUEST FOR HEARING, AND REQUEST FOR FURTHER RELIEF 12 I. INTRODUCTION 13 On July 3, 1986, the NRC published in the Federal 14 Register a notice of consideration of the issuance of an 15 amendment to the Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3 16 license and offered the opportunity for a hearing on the l' amendment.1 51 Fed. Reg. 24458. The instant amendment 18 19 Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3, is a 65 MWe 20 boiling water reactor owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company which is located near the City of Eureka, Humboldt 21 County, California. The Humboldt Bay plant operated from August 1963 until July 1976 when it shut down for refueling, 22 maintenance, and seismic modifications. In an Order for Modification of License that was issued on May 21, 1976, a 23 provision was added to the operating license which required the satisfactory completion of a seismic design upgrading 24 program and resolution of certain seismic and geologic concerns prior to power operation following the 1976 outage.
25 On July 7, 1983, PGandE announced its intention to (Footnote Continued)
GOO 90310861003 g ADOCK 05000133 PDR
[]SOJ
b r
b o
I relates to PGandE's decommissioning proposal of July 30, 2 1984, and would: (1) delete license conditions related to 3 seismic investigation, analysis, and modification; 4
(2) approve the licensee's decommissioning plan for 30 years 5 of onsite storage of residual radioactivity ("SAFSTOR");
6 (3) revise the technical specifications to reflect the 7
permanent shutdown and " possess-but-not-operate" status of 8
the facility, and to reflect the SAFSTOR status; and 9
(4) extend License No. DPR-7 for an additional 15 years from 10 November 9, 2000, to November 9, 2015, to be consistent with 11 the 30-year safe storage plan. The notice set August 4, 12 1986, as the deadline for filing a request for hearing and ,
13 petition for leave to intervene.
14 In response to that notice, the Redwood Alliance, 15 an unincorporated organization; Wesley Chesbro, a member of 16 the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors; Douglas H. Bosco, I'
a United States Congressman representing California's First 18 Congressional District; Barry Keene, a member of the 19 California Legislature representing California's Second 20 Senate District; and Daniel E. Hauser, a California State 21 22 23 (Footnote Continued) decommission the facility. In January and February 1984 fuel was removed from the reactor and stored in the spent 24 fuel pool. An amendment was issued on July 16, 1985, which modified the Humboldt Bay operating license to a 25 " possession-only" license to reflect the plant's
" possess-but-not operate" status.
4 L
1 Assemblyman representing the Second Assembly District 2 (Petitioners) filed a joint request for hearing and petition 3 for leave to intervene. PGandE and the NRC staff filed an 4 Answer and Response to the Petition on August 16 and 22, 5
1986, respectively.
6 By Order dated August 26, 1986, the Licensing 7
Board in this proceeding scheduled a prehearing conference 8
for October 21, 1986, and set September 17, 1986, as the 9 deadline for receipt of a supplement to the intervention 10 petition setting forth specific contentions. The 11 petitioners timely filed a supplement to their intervention 12 petition on September 17, 1986. PGandE's response to this ,
13 supplement is set forth below.2 14 II. PGandE RESPONSE A. Legal Standard Governing Admissibility of Contentions 16 Only those contentions which fall within the scope
" of issues set forth in the Federal Register notice of 18 opportunity for hearing and comply with the requirements of 19 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 (b) and applicable Commission case law may 20 l 21 22 2 On September 26, 1986, an Amended Petition was filed
, by the current petitioners. In addition, on September 19,
- 23 1986, a Petition to Intervene was filed by the League of Women Voters of Humboldt County. PGandE plans to file 24 l responses to these pleadings within the time allowed by the
' 9" * **
25 l
26 l
l
g i
A.
I be admitted for litigation in NRC licensing proceedings.
2 See, e.g., Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 3 - and 2) , ALAB-616, 12 NRC 419, 426 (1980); Vermont Yankee 4 Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) , -
5 ALAB-245, 8 AEC 873, 875 (1974); Philadelphia Electric Co.
6 (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3),
7 ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974); Commonwealth Edison Co.
8 (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-30, 12 NRC 683, 689 (1980).
9 See also Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear 10 Plant), ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287, 289 n.6 (1979).
11 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 (b) , a petitioner is 12 required to file "a list of contentions which petitioner ,
13 seeks to have litigated in the matter, and the bases for 14 each contention set forth with reasonable specificity." A 15 petitioner who fails to file at least one contention which 16 satisfies the requirements of S 2.714 (b) will not be permit- l 17 ted to participate as a party. A proffered contention must 18 be rejected if anyone of the following occurs:
19 (1) it constitutes an attack on appli-cable statutory requirements; (2) it challenges the basic structure 21 of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the 22 regulations; 23 (3) it is nothing more than a gener-alization regarding the 24 Petitioner's view of what applicable policies ought to ber (4) it seeks to raise an issue which is 26 not proper for adjudication in the I
proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or (5) it seeks to raise an issue which is 3 not concrete or litigable.
4 Peach Bottom, supra, 8 AEC at 20-21. The purpose of the 5 basis requiremerit of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 (b) is: (a) to assure 6
that the matter sought to be put into question does not 7 suffer from any of the infirmities listed above; (b) to 8
establish sufficient foundation to warrant further inquiry 9
into the subject matter; and (c) to put the other parties 10 sufficiently on notice "so that they will know at least 11 generally what they will have to defend against or oppose."
12 Id. at 20.
13 At the early stages of a proceeding, petitioners 14 need to identify only the reasons " (i.e. , the basis)" for 0
each contention. Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens 16 Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) , ALAB-590, 11 NRC
" 542, 548 (1980). The basis stated for each contention need 18 not " detail the evidence which will be offered in support of 19 each contention." Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf 20 Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 21 (1973). Accordingly, in examining contentions and the bases 22 therefor to determine admissibility, a licensing board may 23 not reach the merits of contentions. Id.; Peach Bottom, 24 supra, 8 AEC at 20. Nevertheless, the basis for contentions 25 must be sufficiently detailed and specific: (a) to demon-26 strate that the issues raised are admissible and further 1
9 1 inquiry into the matter is warranted; and (b) to put the 2 parties on notice as to what they will have to defend 3 against or oppose. This is particularly important where, as 4 here, a hearing is not mandatory, in order to assure that an 5 asserted contention raises an issue which clearly is open to 6 adjudication. Cincinnati. Gas & Electric Co. (William H.
7 Zimmer Nuclear Power Station) , ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8, 12 (1976);
8 Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 9 2) , ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974).
10 In addition, a board is not authorized "to admit 11 conditionally for any reason a contention that falls short 12 of meeting the specificity requirements." Duke Power Co. ,
13 (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-687, 16 NRC 14 460, 466 (1982), modified on other grounds, CLI-83-19, 17 15 NRC 1040 (1983). The NRC's Rules of' Practice do not permit 16 "the filing of a vague, unparticularized. contention, 17 followed by an endeavor to flesh it out through discovery 18 against the applicant or staff." Id., at 468.
19 Finally, a licensing board has no duty to recast l
20 contentions offered by a petitioner to remedy the infir-l 21 r
mities of the type describe 1 in Peach Bottom, supra, in 22 order to enable inadmissible contentions meet the require-i 23
, ments of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion i
24 Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-226, 8 AEC 381, 406 (1974).
l I
25 Should a board nevertheless elect to rewrite a petitioner's l 26 inadmissible contentions so as to eliminate the infirmities I
j i
a I which render the contentions inadmissible, the scope of the 2 reworded contentions may be made no broader than the bases 3 that were previously provided by the petitioner for the 4 inadmissible contentions. Cleveland Electric Illuminating 5 Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-675, 15 6 NRC 1105, 1114-16 (1982).
7 B. Petitioners' Contentions 8 With these concepts in mind, PGandE has the 9 following comments on the contentions proposed by the 10 petitioners in their September 17, 1986, filing.
11 Contention 1 - There is little discussion or analysis of the impact on the local environment and biota of 12 the proposed activities. Humboldt Bay is the largest .
wetland and estuarine habitat in the California coastal 13 zone, containing approximately 23 percent of the coastal wetlands in California. The DES does not document the 14 . potential significant environmental impacts on these coastal wetlands of long-term storage of nuclear materials as is 15 required by the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA")
and the California Coastal Act.
16 g Response to Contention 1 - In this contention, the petitioners assert that the Draft Environmental Statement 18
(" DES") does not adequately document the potential signifi-19 ant environmental impacts due to the proposed 20 g decommissioning activities. The contention does not g specifically identify what " potential significant environmental impacts" concern the petitioners. In fact, g the contention as proposed could open the door to any number of issues which the petitioners might want to raise at 26 I hearing and give rise to the possibility of hearing by 2 surprise. Thus, the contention is overly broad and general 3 and fails to meet the basis and specificity requirements of 4 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 and should, therefore, be rejected.
5 Contention 2 - There is inadequate discussion.and analysis of the storage of spent fuel rods in a spent fuel 6 pool which is already plagued by leakage. The leakage of the pool has persisted since 1966 and continues to this day.
7 The DES states that, " Pumps keep water level in the liner gap lower than the water level in the pool and ground water 8 level...the water from the liner gap is pumped to the radwaste system." However, such mechanical means of con-9 trolling the leak are subject to malfunction and potential impacts of increased contamination have not been discussed.
10 In addition, there is some information in the ER to indicate that there are elevated and trace levels of certain radio-11 nuclides in surface soils at the plant site.
12 Response to Contention 2 - In this contention, the ,
13 petitioners assert an inadequate discussion and analysis in 14 the DES of potential environmental impacts due to alleged 15 leakage of radioactive effluent from the spent fuel pool.
16 PGandE does not oppose the admission of this U contention as it is specifically set forth.
18 Contention 3 - There is inadequate treatment of the seismic hazards to the site. The DES contains virtually 19 no analysis of relevant seismic factors and only cursory consideration of those hazards' interactions with hazardous 20 materials stored on site. This is unacceptable given the fact that (a) the Little Salmon Fault, Bay Entrance Fault, 21 and Buhne Point Fault are located within 21s miles of the facility (the subsurface trace of the Buhne Fault comes 22 within 600 feet of the plant foundation); (b) these faults are capable of generating major earthquakes (with magnitudes 23 up to 7.5) that possibly could destroy the Humboldt facility; and (c) the close proximity of the plant to the 24 city of Eureka could contribute to the severity of any emergency in the event of a large earthquake.
26
4 1
f 1
Response to Contention 3 - In this contention, 2 Petitioners assert inadequate treatment in the DES of 3
seismic interactions with hazardous materials stored on 4 site. However, this contention as worded does not identify 5
l what_ hazardous materials are stored on site that they feel 6 I may cause a hazardous situation due to seismic interactions..
7 Thus, the contention is unfocused and fails to meet the 8
basis and specificity requirements on 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 and 9
should, therefore, be rejected.
10 Contention 4 - There is no discussion of evac-uation plans to be implemented in the event of a worst case 11 type of accident. For instance, a 1980 earthquake toppled a freeway VerPass less than two miles from the plant, despite 12 the epicenter's location being nearly 40 miles away. If a
- similar earthquake occurred on the adjacent faults, Highway 13 101 would probably be closed which would hamper emergency Support activities and evacuation plans.
14 Response to Contention 4 - In this contention, 15 Petitioners simply assert that there is no discussion of 16 p evacuation plans which could be implemented in a worst-case 1g type of accident. Again, the contention fails to specify '
what worst-case type of accident they postulate nor do they 19 relate it to a demonstrated need for emergency response 20 Capabilities. Thus, the contention fails to meet the basis 21 and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 and 7
should, therefore, be rejected.
23 Contention 5 - Viable alternatives such as ship-24 ping spent fuel to locations other than Diablo Canyon were not discussed. It is possible to build an interim facility 25 in a safer and more appropriate place until a permanent repository is constructed. Spent' fuel could also be shipped 26 to Hanford, Washington or Idaho Falls, Idaho, as was the 4
I case with the Three Mile Island plant. In addition, the petitioners contend that the proposal that SAFSTOR continue 2 for thirty years is inappropriate in view of the real possibility that a permanent repository will be in place by 3 the year 1998. Petitioners submit that the license should be continued only until such time as the federal high level-4 waste repository is available. Under the petitioners' alternate proposal, dismantlement would take place as soon 5 as a high level waste repository is available. The immediate dismantlement proposal is consistent with PGandE's 6 present proposal for decommissioning of the Diablo Canyon facility.
Response to Contention 5 - In this contention, petitioners assert that viable alternatives to the SAFSTOR decommissioning plan have not been discussed. In particular, they view several temporary spent fuel storage alternatives as better alternatives to SAFSTOR.
PGandE does not oppose the admission of this contention as specifically set forth.
Contention 6 - The DES fails to address the impact 15 of a major flood, tsunami, or fire at the plant alone, or in conjunction with a major earthquake. As was mentioned in 16 the petition to intervene, the DES failed to discuss the I, possible impacts of any of these phenomena on the people of Humboldt County or the surrounding environment. This oversight is significant given the fact that a tsunami 18 previously destroyed a portion of Crescent City in 1964.
Crescent City is 80 miles north of the facility. A 50 or 19 100 year flood coupled with high tides could possibly inundate the Humboldt plant, destroy fuel storage tanks, and 20 cause unknown damage to the containment structures, and associated buildings and equipment. A serious fire could 21 cause similar damage, particularly if caused by an earth-quake.
Response to Contention 6 - In this contention, petitioners assert that the DES fails to address certain events, e.g., flood, tsunami, or fire alone or in 26 s - ,
6~
1 conjunction-with a major earthquake and the possible impacts 1
2 on the surrounding population and environment. i 3 PGandE does.not oppose this contention provided 4 that it is limited to consideration of the health effects 5 and environmental impacts of the Unit 3 decommissioning 6 activities.
7 Contention 7 - The DES fails to address the impact on the fuel rods stored in the spent fuel pond, if the 8 storage pool were to be emptied of water by a major earth-quake and/or damaged by falling debris. During an earth-9 quake, groundwater levels around the plant could fluctuate wildly and thereby allow the leakage from the fuel pond to 10 be transported out into the bay by fluctuations in the water table. In addition, the DES fails to address the possible 11 environmental impacts which could occur if one or both of the natural gas fired units were damaged by an earthquake.
Response to Contention 7 - In this contention, petitioners assert that the DES fails to address the impact f an earthquake on fuel rods in the. storage pool due to
- 15
- loss of water or damage from falling debris. They also 4
g allege a concern with leakage from the fuel pond [ spent fuel g storage pool] into the bay. Further, they mention in i passing the effects of earthquakes on the other two gas-19 g fired units on the site.
PGandE does not oppose this contention as long as it involves only earthquake effects on Unit 3. The question of environmental impacts due to problems at the other two units is not at issue in this proceeding and, hence, is not i within the jurisdiction of this Board.
Contention 8 - Irrespective of whether the license 26 is modified to allow for decommissioning under PGandE's 30 L
b
.C 1 year plan, or is modified to only extend until the federal high level waste repository becomes available, petitioners 2 contend that the license conditions requiring seismic investigation and analysis should not be deleted. The 3 Humboldt facility is sited in an area of great and ever-changing seismic activity. Petitioners content that the 4 discontinuances of the utilities seismic investigation and analysis program would have a detrimental impact on the 5 health and safety of themselves and residents of Humboldt County.
Response to Contention 8 - In this contention, petitioners assert that discontinuance of PGandE's seismic investigation and analysis program, assuming arquendo a 9
30-year SAFSTOR program is approved, would have a detri-mental impact on their health and safety as well as other residents of Humboldt County.
2 PGandE opposes this contention on the ground that 3
petitioners have not stated any basis for the contention.
4 A rdingly, it fails to meet the basis and specificity 15 requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 and should, therefore, be 16 3,
rejected.
18 //
19 //
20 21 22 23 24
\
25 26
T J
O 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, PGandE believes 3 the proposed Contentions 2, 5, 6, and 7 should be admitted 4 as changed and Contentions 1, 3, 4, and 8 rejected.
5 Respectfully submitted, 6 ROBERT OHLBACH PHILIP A. CRANE, JR.
7 RICHARD F. LOCKE Pacific Gas and Electric Company 8 P. O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 9 (415) 781-4211 10 BRUCE NORTON c/o Richard F. Locke 11 77 Beale Street San Francisco, CA 94106 12 (415) 768-4462 .
. /
14 Dated: October 3, 1986 By '
15 Attorneys for Pacific Gas and Electric Company-16 17 18 19 l 20 l 21 22 23 24 25 l 26 r
l !
L
Y e
i DCLKEIED
'J 3 NkC 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16 0CT -6 P4 54 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
0FFILL GF 2 ,e lAF v 3 In the Matter of ) $$dC
)
4 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-133
) License No. DPR-7 5 (Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3) )
)
6 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 8
The foregoing document of Pacific Gas and Electric 9 Company has been served today on the following by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed:
10 11 Mitzi Young, Esq. Robert M. Lazo, Esq.,
Office of the Executive Chairman 12 Legal Director Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel 13 Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission 14 Washington, D.C. 20555 Secretary 15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. James H. Carpenter, Commission Member 16 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Attn.: Docketing and Board Panel 17 Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulacory Commission 18 Scott L. Fielder, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 517 Third Street, Suite 14 19 Eureka, CA 95501 Dr. Peter A. Morris, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing 20 Board Panel l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
21 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 22 Dated: October 3, 1986 23 By ,
25 V Richard F. Locke Attorney for 26 Pacific Gas and Electric Company l
. _ _ _ _