NUREG/CR-0400, Forwards NRC Policy Statement Re Reactor Safety Study,Review by the Lewis Committee (NUREG/CR-0400) & Survey of NRC Uses of WASH-1400.All Documents Have Been Furnished to ASLB & Aslab Panel Members.W/O Encl

Forwards NRC Policy Statement Re Reactor Safety Study,Review by the Lewis Committee (NUREG/CR-0400) & Survey of NRC Uses of WASH-1400.All Documents Have Been Furnished to ASLB & Aslab Panel Members.W/O Encl

ML17272A319
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	02/12/1979
From:	Paton W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Bowers E, Cole R, Eva Hill LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 7903070096
Download: ML17272A319 (24)

Text

february 12,.1979 Dr. Richard f. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Elizabeth S.

Bowers, Esq.

-"Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

'.S.'nuclear Regulatoiy Commission Washington, D.C.

,20555 fir. Ernest E. Hill Lawrence Livermore Laboratory University of California P.O.

Box 808, L-123 Livermore, California 94550 In the flatter of I

WASHINGTOt( PUBLIC POllER SUPPLY SYSTEM, et al.

WPPSS nuclear Pro'ect f/o. 2 Sincerely,

(

).

Docket No. 50-397-OL

Dear tlembers of the Board:

In connection with the Commission's consideration of the Lewis Committee Report (f/UREG/CR-0400)', the Commission has issued a policy statement on the reactor safety study and its review by Lewis.

This is enclosed for the information of the parties.

In addition, at the Commission's

request, the Staff has conducted a

survey of the uses which the Staff has made of WASH-1400.

A copy of this, survey is also enclosed for the information of the parties.

I Copies of the enclosed documents have been furnished separately to all, Licensing and Appeal Board Panel flembers for their use.

I

<<Wij.liam D<<0 Paion Counsel for HRC Staff cc:

See page 2

VBQ3OI<<QC)7%%d

'orrIo'I0y

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

OURNRI0C~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ \\~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

OaTI0~

~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~

> ~ ~

~

~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ I00

~ ~ ~ I ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

hlEC PORN 518 (976) NRCM 0240 4 U00 OOVRRNMCNT rRINTINOdrrICIIII 000 000 0 ~ 0

0 0

Tl A

h t

'k Y

1 1I

/

cc:

(w/encls.)

Nicholas.D. Lewis, Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.

Susan H. Garrett Richard g. guigley, Esq.

Nepom.8 Rose Thomas F. Carr, Esq.

Greg Darby.

Docketing and Service Section DISTRIBUTION MPaton, Bordenick, Hoefling Shapar/Engelhardt/Scinto FF.(2)

Reg. Cent.,

LPDR D.Vassallo,'.Smith J.Norris, D.Lynch cc:

(w/o encls.):

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel l'RIRNAIIR W

DATRIL

~ 0 0

o ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

..HP.:ns.'.

.zg/kg.7g......,.-..

~ t4 ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~

~ ~

~

~ ~

I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0 ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

\\ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~oq

~ ~ ~ ~

IO ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~,0 ~ ~ ~

SEC POEM 518 (976) NECbf 0240 U O OOVONNIIONTONINTINO OFPICO I ~ ~ 7 ~

0 ~ 0 TO ~

/

0

.e g

1 e

t '

I

'I I

/

I I

h

D e

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY" AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM

(~rJPPSS Nuclear Project No.

2)

)

)

)

Docket No. 50-397-OL

)

)

)

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS 'DDITIONAL CONTENTION AND LEGAL ARGUMENT In a document dated February 1, 4979, Petitioners

Darby, Garrett, and Hanford Conversion Project attempted to file an additional contention and legal argument supporting several previous contentions.

The Washington Public Power Supply System

("Applicant" ) hereby objects to the submission of that document at this time since petitioners stipulated at the special px'ehearing conference that the pending petition to intervene should be disposed of on the basis of the record at the close of that conference.

Petition Should Be Disposed Of On Basis Of Exist'ing Record

At the close of the special prehearing conference, peti-tioners requested permission to file an additional contention (Tr. 115) and legal argument supporting cextain previous con-tentions (Tr. 118).

However, with respect to the additional contention, petitioners flatly stated that the Board should

dispose of the petition to intervene on the basis of the record at the close of the prehearing conference.

Petitioners stated that-

"[W]e don't expect. the Board to wait, for this additional contention in reaching its ruling.

We are asking for permission, assuming a favorable response to our

.Petition, therefore we are not asking you to hold in abeyance. your decision on our Petition while we prepare this con-tention".

(Tr. 117.)

On the express understanding that the Board would not receive or consider the additional contention prior to ruling on the petition, the Applicant stated that.it had no objection to untimely contentions (assuming, of course, that there was compliance with NRC regulations with respect thereto)-

(Tr. 117-118.)

With respect to that portion of petitioners document presenting legal argument supporting previous contentions, Applicant submits that the Board also should not consider this argument in rendering its decision on the pending petition.

The record is clear that petitioners and the Applicant "agreed that the Board '=should rule on the basis of the record at 'the close of the prehearing conference.

When petitioners noted that they intended to file this legal argument, Appli-cant objected on the basis that it should have been filed 15 days prior to the conference pursuant to 10 CFR g2.714 (Tr. 118-119).

In response, petitioners stated that they

3 did not desire the Board to consider this legal argument in ruling on the petition to intervene.

Petitioners stated that:

"It is definitely not the intention of the Petitioners to further delay the proceedings, and so our other contentions, which don't depend upon this brief, and since only one valid contention is neces-sary in order for you to pass upon our

petition, we would ask that you not delay your deliberations in waiting for this document.

We would like, then, to be allowed to file this document if and when the Board grants us status to inter-

vene, so that we might, clarify those additional contentions."

(Tr. 119-120.)

In addition, petitioners stated that:

"[W]'hat we would ask is that you delay ruling on the admissibility of Contentions 6 and 7 whi;ch do depend in part upon this concept.

We would ask if you could simply rule on those at a later time and not delay this present ruling." (Tr. 120.)

In response to these statements by petitioners, the Board stated that it would "proceed with those that are ripe for ruling.

(Tr. 120).

On the basis of the foregoing, it is beyond valid dispute that the parties and the Board were in agreement at the special prehearing conference that the Board should rule on the petition to intervene on the basis of the record as it existed at the close of that conference.

Petitioners'tatements clearly reflected that this was their understanding.

Accordingly, we submit that the additional

contention and legal argument contained in petitioners'ebruary 1 document are not properly the subject of considera-tion by the Board in ruling on the petition.

In these circumstances

.and consistent with the under-standing reached at the special prehearing conference, the Applicant will defer filing a substantive response to peti-tioners'ocument until the Board has ruled on the petition.

In the event the Board grants intervention on the basis of one of the first five contentions (petitioners having requested that Board consideration of Contentions 6 and 7 be deferred (Tr. 120)), it is Applicant's view that only then'ill peti-tioners'ebruary 1 document be prop'erly before the Board.

We expressly reserve the opportunity to respond to that docu-ment if and when the Board grants the petition.

II.

Appeal Board Guidance on Reliability of Anon ous Informa'nts

The Applicant takes this opportunity to call to the Board's attention the recent guidance of the Appeal Board in Metro olitan Edison Com an (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-525, Slip.Op.

(February 1, 1979) relating to the significance to be attached to affidavits containing, alleged statements of anonymous informants.

In that case, the Appeal Board noted as follows:

"[N]o significance at all has been attached to the content of those affidavits. It is to be hoped that we are long past that sorry day in this Nation's history when reliance was placed upon the statements assertedly made by anonymous informants unwilling to come forward and be confronted on the accuracy of those statements.

[Slip Op.

at, pp. 6-7.)

We believe that this guidance from the Appeal Board is material to this Board's consideration of petitioners'ontention 4 relating to seismicity, and specifically of the information contained. in the affidavit of Mr. Barber which is cited as the sole basis for 'that contention.

Respectfull submitted, DEBEVOI E LIBERMAN Nichol Counse Sfo eynolds he Applicant February 15, l979

NXTED STATES OF AMERICA LEAR REGULATORY COMMXSSI~

BEFORE THE ATOMXC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM P

In the Matter of

)

)

)

)

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Proj'ect No.

2)

)

Docket No. 50-397-OL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, copies of "Applicant's Response To

'etitioners'dditional Contention And Legal Argument,"

dated February 15-,'979, in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 15th day of February, 1979:

Elizabeth S.

Bowers, Esp.

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Mr. Ernest E. Hill Lawrence Livermore Laboratory University of California P.O.

Box 808, L-123 Livermore, California 94550

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi s sion Washington, D.C.

20555

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear, Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 William D. Paton, Esp.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Po.gulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

Mr. Nicholas D. Lewis Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 820 East Fifth Street, Olympia, Washington 98501 Thomas F. Carr, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Temple of Justice Olympia, Washington '8504 Richard Q. Quigley, Esq.

Washington Public Power Supply System Post Office Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Mr. Creg Darby 2425 S.E.

24th Street

Portland, Oregon 97214 Ms. Susan M. Garrett 632 S.E.

18th Street

Portland, Oregon 97214 Doreen L. Nepom, Esq.

Nepom G Rose Suite 101 Kellogg Building 1935 S.E.

Washington Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Docketing 6 Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

(

/

Nichola S.

eynolds cc:

Gerald C. Sorensen O. Keener Earle

ITED-STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

)

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER

)

SUPPLY SYSTEM

)

Docket No. 50-397-OL

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No.

2)

)

APPLICANT'S PROPOSED TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS The Applicant herein proposes corrections to the tran-script of the prehearing conference held in the captioned

matter, January 25, 1979, in Richland, Washington, as follows:

~Pa e

Line Correction 14 Change "reconvened, pursuant to recess, at 9:00 a.m." to "convened at 9:00 a.m."

22a Change "Lieberman" to "Liberman" 10 10 10 24 16 Add RICHARD Q QUIGLEYg ESQ Chief Counsel Washington Public Power Supply System 3000 George Washington Way

Richland, Washington 99352"

.Change "Lieberman" to "Liberman" Delete the comma after "partner" and add "in my firm, and" Change "appeal" to "Appeal" Change "proceedings" to "proceeding" Change "licensing" to,"Licensing"

~Pa e

Line Correction 10 10 19 23 Change "contingent" to "contention" Change "stake.

That" to "stake--that."

10 12 24 Change "law in" to "lawin" Add "river" after "220" Add "air" after "180" Change "WNP" to "WNP-2" Change "invest" to "vest" Delete "100 miles or more" 12 19 Delete the comma after "Yakima" and add "or" 12 12 13 14 21 21 17 Change "from" to "in view of" Change "invest" to-"vest" Change

.. "WNP" to

~'WNP-2" Change "according" to "pursuant" Change "invest" to "vest" 14 14 12 13 Change "pleasings" to "pleadings" I

Change "and the Sierra Club" to "in Sierra Club,"

27 33 33 34 34 37 23 18 18 21 Delete "intentions" Add quotation marks before "and during" Add quotation marks after "conference."

Change "and which may contain" to "interest and which may (but need not) contain" Delete the comma after "filed" Change "indicate" to "vindicate"

P~a e

Line Correction 37 38 13 Change "inconsistent" to "consistent" Delete "of interests" 38 24'hange'"file" to "joint" 47 13 Change "all its regulations may fall" to "its regulations may borrow" 47 14 Change "federal rules of procedure" to "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,"

49 24 Change "information" to "intervention" 50 50 50 12 13 19 Change "has backed up discretionary inter-vention as" to "created discretionary inter-vention,"

Add "it is" before "a" Delete "That is" and change "the" to "The" 50 20 Change "adhering it" to "a hearing" 50 50 51 21 22 Change "is" to "has" Change "interest..

There" to "interest, there" Change the comma to a colon 51 Change "federal" to "Federal" 51 51 51 51 51 16 25 Change "register to ""Receister" Change "federal register" to "Federal R~e ister" Change the period to a colon Change "by" to "from" Delete "would be welcome"

Page Line Correction 52 Delete the comma 52 52 52 52 13 14 17 Change "with" to "by" Change the comma to a period Change "nor" to "Nor" Change "waive requirement-to" to "waive the 52 53 53 53 59 59 59 62 63 63 25 23 16 requirement in" Change "proceed" to "contribute" Change "Bar substantial" to "Bar--'substantial."

Add quotation marks after the period Change "proceedings."

to "proceedings to-delay."

Change "have" to "will" Change "cussed" to "cuss" Change "that are" to "and not" Change "in fifteen days." to "fifteen days prior to this conference."

Delete "which" Change "we relying on this position" to "we, relying on this provision" 63

.Add a comma after "regulations" 64 65 10 15 Change "in" to "all of" Add "to" after "on" Change "alternative operation" to "alternatives to operation of"

Parte Line Correction Change "operate a full" to "not operate a

built" 65 65 65 65 12 14 18 Change "evaluation" to "alternative" Change "3 and 4" to "384" Change "conservation need" to "conservation/need" Delete "not" 65 19 Change "Peachbottem, ALAB 3" to "Peach

Bottom, ALAB 389" 65 22 Delete "not"

'5 66 24 Change "in" to "and" Delete "and applicant,"

66 Change "that" to ", which" Change "reflect that" to "reflect, is that" 77 77 80 81 10 25 Change "reference, in" to "reference in their".

Change "their reference to sections of point 50" to "they refer to sections of Part 50" Change "A need" to "Need" Change "atomic energy" to "the Atomic Energy Act" 82 Change "it's a rate payer's" to "is a rate-82 82 82 85 22 23 18 payer's" Change the period to a question mark Change "explain" to "explore" Change "obtain" to "issue" Change "2.4" to "2.714"

Parte Line Correction 90 Change "contention is the general accounting office" to "the contention is the General 90 90 90 90 90 91 91 91 91 94 10 10 13 14 19 24 Accounting Office" Change "report, and the" to "report.

Reference to The" Change "give us nonspecific basis to reference" to "gives us no specific basis" Change "documents with respect, to which these particular petitions" to "with respect to this particular contention."

Change "had nothing to do in preparation of--

they" to "They" Delete the comma after "allege" Change "On the" to "The" Change "inserted" to "asserted" Change "unheated, the" to "unheeded.

The" Change "but" to "and" Change "DO 8" to "a DOE" Delete "its" 94 25 Change "general accounting office" to "General Accounting Office" 95 100 22 23 Change "a" to "an OL" Change "to" to "through" Change "radiation, as" to "radiation.

As"

P~acae 100 100 100 Line 19 Correction Change "a numerical guide for design objectives,"

/

to "numerical guides for design objectives" Add "as low as i5" after "which are" Add a comma after "contention" 100 100 20 21 Change "of earlier statements, and certainly do" to "which does" Change "which are" to "for" 107-108 Change "Procedures, to" to "Procedures.

To" 107-108 Change "storage, WNP-2, the" to "storage of WNP-2" 107-108 22 Change the comma to a period 107-108 23 Change "and" to "And" 107-108 24 Change "here.

Vermont Yankee".to "here, Vermont Yankee,"

107-108 25 Change "plead" to "pleaded" Res'pectfully submitted, DEBEVOI 6 LIBERi~N Nichol Counsel f Reynolds the Applicant February 6,

1979

5

~

~

NITED STATES OF AMERICAQj CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE'HE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

)

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER

)

SUPPLY SYSTEM

)

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No.

2)

)

Docket No. 50-397-OL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Applicant's Proposed Transcript Corrections,"

dated February 6, 1979, in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 6th day of February, 1979:

Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Mr. Ernest E. Hill Lawrence Livermore Laboratory University of California P.O.

Box 808, L-123 Livermore, California 94550

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 William D. Paton, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

Mr. Nicholas D. Lewis Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 820 East Fifth Street Olympia, Washington 98501 Thomas F. Carr, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Temple of Justice Olympia, Washington 98504 Richard Q. Quigley, Esq.

Washington Public Power Supply System Post Office Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Mr. Creg Darby 2425 S.E.

24th Street.

Portland, Oregon 97214 Ms. Susan M. Garrett 632 S.E.

18th Street

Portland, Oregon 97214 Doreen L. Nepom, Esq.

Nepom 6 Rose Suite 101 -'ellogg Building 1935 S.E. Washington Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Docketing 6 Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Nichola ynolds cc:

Gerald C. Sorensen O. Keener Earle

UNITED STATES OF Al/ZRICA i'lUCLEAR REGULATORY COli114ISSION BEFORE THE ATOhfIC SAFETY AND LICEI'lSING BOARD r't FEB 5 I978 k In the matter of YIASHINGTON PUBLIC POVIER SUPPI Y SYSTE1'1 r

{VIPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2)

Docket No. 50-597-OL Cmdm d l~~

PaC4lldg + ~W PETITIONrR'S ADDITIONALCONTENTION AND LEGAL ARGPiC~NT Petitioners Creg Darby and Susan i>f. Garr t, acting on their ovrn behalf and on behalf of the Hanford Conversion Project, and pursuant to the Board's permission granted at the special pre-hearing conference held 25 January

1979, hereby submit:

(A) one additional contention, and (B) a legal argument justifying parts of sev ral of the' contentions.

A.

ADDITIONALCONT"NTIOiV Contention VIII: Safety Intervenors contend that there are:

(a ) no adeouate assessments of. the probabilities of accidents v~hich may occur during operation of YINP-2; (b) no adeauate assessments of the consequences of accidents vIhich may occur during operation of VINP-2; (c) no adequate

methods, models, data

bases, empirical verifi-cations and other means for assessing the risks to the health and safety of the public of Y/iV -2 operation;

{d) no adequate assessments of the interrelationships affecting safety bet veen YINP-2 and other nearby faciliti s, including VINP-1, YINP-4, the Fast Flux Test Facility, the N-reactor, the PUREX plant, and various radioactive vastes stored on the Hanford Reservation; and therefore there is not the reasonable assurance that VIiVP-2 ivillnot endanger the health and safety of the publmc, as required by 10 CFR 50.57(a ibis contention is based,'n e-" alia, upon the reoudiation by the Commission of the Reactor Safety Stud~yT(ASH-1400).

So at least the extent that the design, construction,

testing, safety analysis, and operating proceduies for VINP-2 have been based upon the assumptions,

methods, models, procedures, and conclusions of the

RSS, they are in-validated'y the Commission's action.

B.

LEGAL ARGKK1tT Petitioners'ontentions VI, Vii, and VIII seek nn part to have adjudicated the additive, cumulative, interactive, interdependent, and

synergistic effects of VINP-2 operation taken together vth the existence and operation of other nearby facilities, planned,

existing, and proposed.

These facilities include, but are not limited to, V/I4-1, Wi'JP-4, the Fast Plux Test Facility the H-reactor, PUREX plant, and the ongoing

{and possibly oermanentI uraste management crogram on the Hanford Pese-vation.

That these effects must be considered is clear, for "ti)n determining the contents of an environmental tmpact statement, the Commission shall be guided by the Council on nvironmental Quali y Guidelines on Prepara-tion of Environmental. Impact Statementsy 40 CPR 1500 8 10 CPR 51

~ 23{d).

Those. guidelines in turn provide that an EIS shall "succinctly describe the environment of the area affected as it exists prior to a proposed action, including other Pederal activities in the area affected bv the proposed action which are related to the proposed action.

The inter-relati'onsh'os and cumulative environmental imaacts of the orooosed action and other related Ped al ~oro'ecto shall be presented in the statement."

40 0PR 1500.8 a

'I~em oasis added~

p There can be no doubt that the other activities enumerated suora-all of shish are either Pederal or Pederallycensed are indeed rela ed to WNP-2.

his follows from the well-lnovrn fact that the biolog cal effects of ionizing radiation are cumulative.

Since all of th Hanford Reservation activities enumerated do release radiation to the environment, the i~pact of V/OP-2 taken in concert with th m is substantially different from the impact of Via'P,-Z alone.

Having established that the EIS must consider WibTP-2 operation tak n together with oth nearby activit'es, it follows that this is a proper issue for adjudication, inasmuch as 10 CPR 51.52(b) specnfically orovides that environmental statem nts are to be offered as ev'ence in a licensing proceeding.

In Pro.'ect

{11ana ement Coroorat'n.

Tennesse" Vali.

Autho~rit (Clinch River Breeder Plant, LBP-76-14P 3

NRC 430

1976, the licensing board admitted a contention "dealing with... the proximity of other facilities." 3 NRC at 435.

Proximity of other facilities bears directly on safety considerations (Contention VIII) as well.

Richard E. Viebb, a physicist and nuclear

engineer, has offered a scenario that demonstrates this:

"pAJ disastrous reactor accident in which one half of the core and its fission products are ejected out of the reactor containment

. would create such heavy radiation in the region of the site that the operators of the remaining reactors Lin the vicinityj might flee, justif'ably, leaving their reactors unattended." Ji'he close proximity to WÃP-2 of YlNP-1, WaP-4P and the PFTP is precisely the sort of situation which Webb posits.

Dated this 1st day of

February, 1979.

Respectfully submitted, ij,,/

Creg Darby, oro s, and on behalf of

/

Susan Garrett and Hanford Conversion Project The Accid nt Hazards of I/uclear Power Plan s, Un'versity of itassachusetts Press Amherst:

1976, p.

151.

UNITED STATES OP AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CORJISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING HOARD In the matter of Docket No. 50-397-OL

~

e CERTlPICATE OF SERVICE YiASHINGTON PUBLIC POY~

SUPPLY SYSTEM (WppSS Nuclear prc]eca Nc. 2).

) ~eel I hereby certify that copies of "Petitioners'dditional Contention and'egal Argument" have been served on the following parties by deposit in the United States Vail this 1st day of February, 1979.

Elizabeth S.

Bowers, Esq.

Atomic Safety 8c Licensing Boa d Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Viashington, D.C.

20555 Dr. Richard P. Cole Atomic Safety R licensing

~

Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Yiashington, D.C.

20555 Nr. Ernest E. Hill lawrence Livermore Laboratory University of California P.O.

Box 808, L-123 Livermore; CA 94550 William D.

Pa ton, Esq.

Office of the Executive L gal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Docketing A Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.

Debevoise fc lieberman 1200 Seventeenth St.,

N.W.

Yiashington, D.C.

20036 R chard Q. Quigley, Esq.

Was>> ngton Public Pov er Supply

~ys~

m P.O.

Box 9o8

Richland, ViA 99352 f>Ir. Nicholas D. Le,v~~, Chairman Energy Pacility Sate Evaluation Council 820 East Pifth Avenue

Olympia, YiA 98504 Creg Darby