ML20214W604
| ML20214W604 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1987 |
| From: | Lodge T SUNFLOWER ALLIANCE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3733 2.206, OL, NUDOCS 8706160098 | |
| Download: ML20214W604 (7) | |
Text
o 3, 73,3 DOCHEiU-June 5,' 987 usype UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR P,EGULATORY COMMISSIOu
'87 JUN 11 A8 :59 rsc In the Matter of
)
hoch
)
Cleveland Electric Illuminating
)
Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-440,pf,
)
50-441 (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
SUNFLOWER ALLIANCE'S MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD AND TO SUBMIT A NEW CONTENTION Now comes Sunflower Alliance, Inc. (hereinafter " Sunflower"), an Intervenor herein, by and through counsel, and moves the Commission to reopen the operating license adjudication record.of this matter for Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 4
1 (hereinafter "PNPP"), and submit a new contention, namely:
Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the General Electric Mark III reactor containment design is not unduly susceptible to earthquakes; will ensure minimal exposure of PNPP workers to radiation; conforms oper-ationally to accepted metallurgical stress and fatigue levels in its water and steam transmitthg systems; has been submitted tc thorough operational testing.
In support of its Motion, Sunflower states the following facts as cause:
1.
PNPP is a General Electric Corporation SWR 6/ Mark III containment boiling water reactor.
2.
On May 30, 1987, it was publically revealed for the first time, in a copyrighted article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, that in 1975 a team of General Electri: engineers recommended that the firm cease selling reactors of the afore-mentioned design because the design "does not constitute a quality product."
Called the " Reed Report," the study capped an eight-month-long internal investigation of General Electric's design for the containment vessel and reactor.
The report further contained a recommendation by its authors that General Electric should effectively cease marketing the reactor and containment design, because, inter alia, the technology to fix problems was prospectively not going to be available; e
8706160098 870605 M)0 PDR ADOCK 05000440 y
O PDR u
s- ~
e the design was believed to be unusually subject to carthquake hazards; that plant workers might be unusually subject to radiation exposures; that safety systems contained in the design had not been subjected to adequate testing; and that inadequate or undertested metals could create defectively-performing systems.
3.
The Reed Report is not known to be part of the public record anywhere.
4.
Upon information and belief the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been privy to the report, but has affirmatively refused to apply its conclusions to a re-evaluation of Mark III design reactors, including PNPP.
5.
Upon information and belief, employees, officers and/or agents of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (hereinafter "CEI") have, on the one hand, acknowledged the existence of the Reed Report and indicated that hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of retrofits were made pursuant to its conclusions during PNPP construction, and on the other, that CEI knew nothing about the report while PNPP was being built, and that no design modificatims were ever made.
From these allegations, it appears that either nome or no CEI-sponsored analysis or NRC regulatory review has taken place at PUPP in response to the Reed Report conclusions.
6.
Sunflower states that due to the suppression of existence of this report, to the present by CEl, the Commission, and/or General Electric Corporation, that this Intervenor had no means of discovery or suspecting its existence for pur-poses of discovery during the operating license adjudication stage.
7.
Sunflower states that due to the seriousness of General Electric staff's own criticisms of its product; to the proximity of PNPP to heavy population con-centrations; and to the public, conflicting statements of CEI officers, employees and/or agents, that an unusual circumstance exists which would justify the reopening of the record: and adjudication of a new contention encompassing the within issues.
WHEREFORE, Sunflower Alliance, Inc. prays the Commission reopen W
the operating license adjudication for receipt of a new contention.
- Further, Sunflower prays the Commission' suspend the operating license of Perry Nuclear Power Plant pending full discovery, adjudication and decision of this issue.
D 0An'/ 6%.
o Sui (te201 Terry' Jd'r 'than Lodge 618 N. Mi higan St.,
Toledo, 0 43624 (419)255-7552 Counsel for Sunflower Alliance, Inc.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION The Commission has recently restated the standards that apply to motions
- such as Sunflower's:
The standards for reopening a closed record require consideration of three fac-tors:.(1) whether the motion to reopen is timely; (2) whether the information raises
-a significant safety (or environmental) con-cern; and (3) whether the information might have led the Licensing Board to reach a dif-ferent result.
- Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3),
CLI-86-1, 23 N.R.C.
, slip op. at 3 (january 30, 1986).
"The burden of satisfying the reopening requirements is a heavy one." Id. at 3 (citing Kansas Can and Electric Co. (Wold Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-462, 7 N.R.C. 320, 328 (1978) and Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-359, 4 N.R.C. 619, 620-21 (1976)..
As noted by the Commission:
"'{B]are allegations or simple submission of new contentions' are not enough to meet these standards." Waterford, CLI-86-1, slip op. at 4 (quoting Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5, 13 N.R.C. 361, 363 (1981).
"At a minimum... the new material in support of a motion to reopen must be set forth with a degree of particularity in excess of the basis and specificity requirements contained 2
a in 10 C.F.R. -2.714(b) for admissable conten-tions.
Such supporting information must be more than mere allegations; it must be tanta-mount to evidence
[and] possessthe attri-butes set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.743(c) defining admissible evidence for adjudicatory proceedings.
Specifically, the new evidence supporting the motion must be 'relevent, material, and reliable.'"
Waterford CLI-86-1, slip op at 4 (quoting Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-775, 19 N.R.C.
1361, 1366-67, aff'd sub nom. San Luiz Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 D. 2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1984), vacated in part and reh'g mibanc granted on other grounds, 760 F. 2d 1320 (1985) (footnote emitted). Accordingly, the burden is on a movant to establish prior to reopening that the standards for reopening are met, and "it is not enough merely to express a willingness
'to provide unspecified, additional information... at some unknown date in the future." Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), CLI-85-7, 21 N.R.C. 1104, 1106 (1985) (quoting Louisiana Power
& Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-753, 18 N.R.C.
1321, 1324 (1983)).
In addition to meeting'these standards, Sunflower's raising of a pre-viously unconteated issue must also satisfy the Commission's standards _for admission of late-filed contentions, set forth in 10 C.F.R. 62. 714 (a) (1).
Waterford, CLI-86-1, slip op. at 6 n. 3.
The most important factor to consider is whether a motion to reopen raises a significant safety issue.
Philadelphia Elcetric Co. (Limerick Cencrating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-828, 23 N.R.C.
, slip op.
at 6 (January 16, 1986). Sunflower submits that the discovery of a hitherto e
unknown, internally-generated engineering report of the very contractor for the Perry design and containment which notes carthquake proneness, heightened radiation dangers to staff, unrealistic metallurgical demands, and deficiencies in testing for safety systems certainly has a bearing upon " safety" as that W
.. im term appears in Limerick.
Nor' are these baseless alJegations. The Commission and the public now are aware of the Reed Report by virtue of its brief moment as part of the public record'in litigation pending h1U.S. District Court in Cincinnati, Ohio, between General Electric and the utilities which built Zimmer Nuclear Power
.c Station, another Mark III containment design. The Reed Report since I.as been reclassified as proprietary, hence confidential.
From this perspe(nive, when neither Sunflower, nor the Commission have the document and can evaluate ilts controversial recommendations in light of the fully context, it is not
'possible to tell.just what re-evaluation of Perry is in order. The original contents of the report mandate that extreme caution be taken in the public interest at this juncture which, in the opinion of Sunflower Alliance, means y
that the record must be reopened and the issues subjected to full adjudication.
It is possible that the Reed Report should have been discoverable, or its existence made known in the course of discovery, but such did not occur in the Perry operating license case.
Furthermore, the new evidence, in the form of the Reed Report and pro-bably other internal General Electric documents, certainly is "relevent, material and reliable" per the Diablo Canyon standard.
Sunflower Alliance submits that it can meet the legal criteria to reopen the record for the litigation of this most serious contention.
U
/
Terry Jby'f thaa Lodge y Gounsel Ebr Sunflower Alliance
/
CERTIFICATION
- q, I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing" Motion to Reopen the Record and to Subrait a New Contention" was sent this If day of June, 1987, postage c
-)
_.e
(
rn-
. Prepaid, via regular U.S. Mail to all Parties on the accompanying Service Liat.
W 4t Terry.fona 4m Lodge
{.
e A
'.i s
N 1
0 f
b A
g
SERVICE LIST m rt ;r -
WE.
Jay Silberg, Esq.
'87 Jgj l j A 8,;59 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street
[0
^
- Mb Washington, D.C.
20037 M<
BRANL4 Anthony Celebreeze, Esq.
Attorney General of Ohio State Office Tower, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43266-0410 Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Rer;ulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Jane:; K. Asselstine, Com:aissione r U.S. Nyclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Frederick Bernthal, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Kenneth !!. Carr, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com:nission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 William C. Parler, ESq.'
U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Ms.-Susan L. Hiatt 8275 Munson Avenue Mentor, Ohio 44060 s
h