ML20237B661

Clarification of NRC Staff Response to Proposed Contentions of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert,Inc & Response to Amended Proposed Contentions.* Position Noted in 871116 Response Reiterated.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20237B661
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	12/03/1987
From:	Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#487-5098 87-554-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 8712170042
Download: ML20237B661 (6)

Text

_ _ - _ _ __ ._ _ _ ____- _ ___

56 91

. 00CHETED USNRC December 3,1987

'87 EC -9 P1 02  !

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE Of H.Cid.huii BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD $Nheb l

~

in the Matter of )

)

GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES )

NUCLEAR CORPORATION, ET AL. ) Docket No. 50-320 OLA I

) ASLBP No. 87-554-OLA (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Disposal of Accident-Station, Unit 2) ) Generated Water)

CLARIFICATION OF NRC STAFF RESPONSE i TO PROPOSED CONTENTIONS OF SVA/TMIA AND RESPONSE TO AMENDED PROPOSED CONTENTIONS

1. INTRODUCTION l On November 16, 1987, the NRC staff filed (and served on Susquehanna Valley Alliance (SVA) and Three Mlle Island Alert, Inc.

(TMI A) by express mail) its " Response to Proposed Contentions of SVA ,

j and TMI A." On November 20, 1987, SVA/TMIA filed amended conten-tions. In this pleading, the Staff sets forth the position it will take at I the December 8 special prehearing conference with respect to the amended contentions. A review of the amended contentions also indicated to the j Staff the need to clarify its position on proposed Contention 2 and that I l clarification is stated in this pleading.

1 II. DISCUSSION I Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(3) a petitioner may amend its in-tervention petition without leave of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board at any time up to 15 days prior to a special prehearing conference held l

l 8712170042 871203 4

$DR ADOCK 03000320 I

l 35ol l

under 9 2.751a. SVA/TMI A's " Amendments to Supplement to the Petition I

for Leave to Intervene..." was filed more than 15 days prior to the De-cember 8 prehearing conference and is, therefore, a timely amendment to their petition. 1 Since the " Licensee's Response to Supplement to Petition for Leave to intervene by SVA and TMI A" was served on November 12, 1987 and the Staff's response on November 16 (both served j by express mail on Ms. Skolnick, the representative of SVA and TMIA),

the Staff considers the amended contentions to have been submitted in i

response to the comments of the Licensee and the Staff. ]

The amended contentions do not cure the deficiencies in the original proposed contentions. Indeed for a number of the contentions (3, second I

and fourth paragraphs of 4, 5(b-d), 7, and 8), there is no change be- ]

tween the original and amended contentions. The Staff's responses to the original contentions are still applicable to the amended contentions. The Staff, however, offers the following clarification of its response to Contention 2. 4 Contention 2 states, in part:

The EIS has not clearly demonstrated that any adverse impact from the disposal program are (sic) outweighed by its bene-fits to the public.

The contention also states:

The NRC and GPU failed to conduct conclusive risk / benefit analysis of the "No Action Alternalve."

~1/ See also 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b) providing that a petitioner for inter-vention must file a list of contentions sought to be litigated not later than 15 days prior to a special prehearing conference.  ;

I

l The Staff considers the part of this contention that challenges the ade-quacy of its analysis of the "no action" alternative to be set forth with sufficient basis and specificity so as to be admissible. See "NRC Staff Response to Proposed Contentions of SVA and TMI A," at 4. The part of l

the contention that asserts that the Sta ff's evaluation inadequately demonstrates that any adverse impacts associated with the proposed evap-oration of the accident-generated water (AGW) are outweighed by the benefits of this proposed disposal to the public is, however, lacking in basis and too vague and general to put the Staff on notice as to the mat-ters to which it would have to respond in testimony were the contention  !

l to be admitted. See Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic l Power Station, Units 2 and 3), A LA B-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974). The ;

Staff, t here fore , clarifles its initial response so that it is clear that the 1 l

Staff supports the admission of only the part of this contention that chal- I lenges the adequacy of the Staff's consideration of the "no action" alternative.

l The Staff perceives only one other amended contention where the change is significant enough to warrant comment. SVA/TMIA have amended Contention 1 so that the first sentence no longer asserts that I 1

the Licensee and Staff have failed to demonstrate that the proposed evap-oration is "more in keeping with" the "as low as is reasonably achievable" (ALARA) principle than any other disposal method. As amended, the first sentence asserts that the Licensee and Staff have failed to demon-strate that the proposed evaporation method " compiles with" the ALARA principal. As noted, however, in the Staff's response (at 4 n.4), evapo-ration of the AGW is projected to result in doses well within the

l

_q_

l l

10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I numerical guidelines. See Supplement )

j No. 2 to the PElS at 3.7. Appendix I provides that conformance to its numerical guidelines "... shall be deemed a conclusive showing of compil-ance . . . " with ALARA requirements. The amended contention falls to )

identify any inadequacy in the PElS, Supplement No. 2 so as to put the Staff on notice as to the matters to which it would have to respond were 1

this contention to be admitted. The amendment to this contention does  !

I not, therefore, cure this significant deficiency. 2_/

l J

III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in this response, the Staff reiterates the position it took, as clarified above, regarding admissibility of the proposed SVA/TMIA contentions in its November 16th response.

Respect ful ly subni t ted, J/A 7v'. w Stephen H. Lewis Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney I

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 3rd day of December,1987

-2/ Additionally, although SVA/TMIA have revised the first sentence of this contention, the contention read in its entirety still asserts that the Commission's ALARA regulations require a comparison of the dos-es associated with alternative methods of disposal of the AGW. For the reasons set forth in the Staff's response (at 3-4), therefore, the contention continues to be lacking any legal basis. I 1

l

0 l

, D0LKEIEI' U5hRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 87 EC -9 P1 :03 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,

' er HCE LJ HGtW Y 00CKEilNG A SE9vlCE BRANCH In the Matter of )

)

GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES )

NUCLEAR CORPORATION, ET AL. ) Docket No. 50-320 OLA

) ASLBP No. 87-554-OLA (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Disposal of Accident-Station, Unit 2) ) Generated Water)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i hereby certify that copies of " CLARIFICATION OF NRC STAFF RE-SPONSE TO PROPOSED CONTENTIONS OF SVA/TMIA AND RESPONSE TO.

AMENDED PROPOSED CONTENTIONS" 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 mall system, or as indicated by a double asterisk by use of express mall service, or as indicated by a triple aster-isk by hand-delivery, this 3rd day of December,1987:

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman E'rnest L. Blake, Jr. Esq.

Administrative Judge Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Shaw, Pittman, Potts C Trowbridge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555* Washington, D.C. 20037***

l Dr. Oscar H. Paris John R. McKinstry l Administrative Judge Assistant Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Commonwealth of Pennsylvania U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 505 Executive House Washington, D.C. 20555* P. O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120**

Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555* Washington, D.C. 20555*

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

I

Susovehanna Valley Alliance Three Mlle Island Alert c/o Ms. Frances Skolnick 315 Peffer Street 2079 New Danville Pike Harrisburg, PA 17102 Lancaster, PA 17603**

Jay Cutlerrez Regional Counsel USNRC, Region I ,

631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406*

(

Stephen H. Lewis Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney 1

l i

I