ML19346A379
| ML19346A379 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1981 |
| From: | Fitzgibbons R COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8106190230 | |
| Download: ML19346A379 (27) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-
' e 6[/M/
7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- n the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-254-SP OMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) 50-265-SP
' Quad Cities Station, Units ) (Spent Fuel Pool Modification)
.! and 3) ) m i @fj, N/ ANSWER OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY N Bh j/[7 0 *\lf'h7 COMPANY AND IOWA-ILLINOIS GAS AND ELECTRIC TO THE PETITIONS TO INTERVENE b l,( b5 ;-{ JUN 161981 > c I4 OF QUAD-CITY ALLIANCE FOR SAFE ENERGY - c
'C g Cftes ot ui. A ..
~'
,, 1 3 1931 " $ ND SURVIVAL, CITIZENS FOR SAFE ENERGY ,p
*7i'E7( & ser.
gC88 4ND OLDER AMERICANS FOR ELDERLY RIGHTS a s , pN' - S Commonwealth Edison Company, on behalf of Iowa-
\j ITiG Ili~nois Gas and Electric Company and itself (" Licensees"),
)ursuant to 10 CFR S2.714(c), hereby files an answer to rarious Petitions for Leave to Intervene in the proceeding sefore the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("Corrniss ion") on Licensees' application for amendments to the operating licenses for Quad-Cities Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
On March 26, 1981 Licensees requested approval to amend the operating licenses for Quad Cities Station, Units 1 and 2, in order to increase these units' spent fuel pools' storage capacity. The Commission filed notice af " Consideration of Amendment to Facility Operating License" on April 30, 1981. (46 Fed. P9g. 24336). Petitions for-Leave to Intervene have been filed by the Quad-City Alliance for Safe Energy and Survival ("QASES"), Citizens for Safe Energy ("CSE"), and the Older Americans for Elderly Rights ( "OAE R" ) . The petitions filed on behalf of the identified , organizations all fail to est'ablish the standing of said
# l 8106190230 i G .
- organizations to participate in this proceeding. However, if viewed as petitions filed on behalf of the individuals who signed these petitions, rather than the named organi-zatAons, the petitions appeaz moet the standing require-ments set forth in 10 CFR 52.714(a).
Each of the petitions for leave to intervene list several preliminary contentions. All that petitioners must do at this stage is identify the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter as to which they seek to intervene. Each of the petitions appears to include at least one aspect of Licensees' proposal from which one valid contention could be drawn. It is, however, Licensees' position that many of the preliminary contentions raised by each positioner raise aspects not proper subjects for adjudication in this proceeding. Petitioners' Standing To Intervene Section 2.714 (a) (2) of the NRC regulations requires that a petition to intervene set forth with particularity tne interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding and the specific aspects of the. proceeding as to which the petitioner wishes to intervene. 10 CFR S2.714 (a) (2) . The Commission has ruled that in order to have standing, a petitioner must adequately allege: (1) that he has or probably will suffer some injury from the action involved (" injury in fact" test); and (2) an interest which is arguably - within the zone of interest to be protected under the Atomic
w-L i 1 -
. _3_
Energy Act. Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-14. Under the " injury in fact" test, standing to intervene is conferred upon an organization only when it can show an injury to itself or to its members. Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. (She f field, Illinois, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site)', A AB-473, 7 NRC 737, 742 (1978). If standing is asserted on the ground that members of the organization will be adversely affected by the pro-posed action, Licensees and the Licensing Board are entitled to a showing concerning the identity of those members so as to be able to verify the rsserted injury. Virginia Electric
& Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-536, 9 NRC 402, 404 (1979). Moreover, there must be a showing that these members have authorized the group to represent their interests. Houston Lighting & Power Co.
(Allen's Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 392-93 (1979). The petitions for leave to intervene filed on behalf of QASES, CSE and QAER all fail to establish that the organization has an adequate interest in this proceeding. None of these petitions identify one member who has an interest in this proceeding by name and address. North Anna, l 9 NRC 402, 404 (1979). The pe?itions filed for OAER and CSE only recount the number of thesa organizations' members l purportedly living in the Cordova area, and the petition ! filed 'on behalf of QASES fails to disclose any information
about its membership. This deficiency is overcome if Licen-sees assume, as they are willing to do, that the person who signed for the organizations are members of the organization. None of these petitions show that these organi-i zations have been authorized by their membership to represent the interests, if any, of their membership in this proceeding. Indeed, OAER is apparently a non-profit organization incor-porated to further the rights of elderly Americans. There is no indication that either this organization's charter or its membership has authorized participation in NRC proceedings. Finally, there is no explicit showing that the individuals who signed these petitions for leave to intervene were, in fact, authorized to do so on behalf of these organi-zations. The petitions filed on behalf of OAER and CSE are signed by individuals holding the offices of, respectively,
" executive director" and " secretary." No statement is made as to whether these positiona have the authority to commit these organizations in adjudicative proceedings. Moreover, the petition filed on behalf of QASES is signed by a Mr.
Robert Romic, who has not asserted an official position within QASES. Accordingly, the petitions for leave to intervene filed in behalf of QASES, CSE and OAER are not adequate. It appears evident, however, that the individuals who signed the petitions for leave to intervene filed on behalf of QASES, CSE and CAER reside within sufficiant proximity to the Quad Cities Station to establish their
-S-individual. standing to intervene. Therefore, Licensee does not object to these three individuals being admitted into this proceeding as intervenors. Furthermore, if petitioners submit supplemental information remedying the deficiencies noted above, Licensees will not object to the intervention of QASES, CSE and OAER.
Aspects of the Proceeding In addition to establishing their rights to parti-cipate in this proceeding, petitioners are required by 10 CFR S2.714(a) to identify the specific aspect or aspects of the proceeding as to which petitioners seek to intervene. The purpose of requiring the identification of the aspect of the subject matter as to which petitioners wish to intervene is to allow the Licensing Board to evaluate whether the aspect is a proper subject matter for adjudication. If the only aspect or aspects of the subject matter identified in a petition are not proper subject matters for adjudication, the petitioner will clearly be unable to later draft one good contention within the scope of the identified aspect as required by 10 CFR S2.714(a) and (b). Each of the Petitions filed on behalf of QASES, CSE and OAER have adequately identified at least one aspect 1/ which meets the requirem'ents of 10 CFR S2.714 (a) (2) .~ However, the majority of the aspects identified in the
~
1/
- Some of the Petitiona contain what their authors have termed " contentions." These purported contentions fall far short of the requirements for a valid contention, and Licensee will, therefore, treat these " contentions" as attempting to raise " aspects" as to which Petitioners wish to intervene.
. ~ . _
Petitions are not proper subjects for adjudication in this proceeding, as will be briefly discussed below.
- 1. Comments on Aspects Raised in Petition Filed on Behalf of QASES:
- 1. QASES Conter. tion No. 1 merely consists of a conclusory sta*.ement and fails to raise a specific aspect which can be properly adjudicated in this proceeding.
- 2. QASES Contention No. 2 does not define what is meant by "long-term storage." If this refers to the duration of the operating license, then it would be possible to draf t one good contention within the scope of this aspect. If long-term storage refers to storage in excess of the operating life of the Quad Cities Nuclear Station, however, then this aspect seeks to raise an issue which is the subject of a generic NRC rulemaking, the so-called " Waste Confidence" proceeding. 44 Fed. Reg. 61372 (October 25, 1979). Licensing Boards do not have the authority to consider, or to order the Staff to consider, any of the environmental ampacts that might be associated with the storage of spent fuel beyond the expiration of an operating license. Consumers Power Com-pany (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant) LBP-80-25, 12 NRC 355, 365 w3 (1980).
- 3. QASES Contention No. 3 (financial costs of eventual disposal) also attempts to raise an issue relating
*o the permanent storage.and disposal of nuclear waste, and _
as such is also impermissible in this proceeding. 44 Fed. Reg. 61372, 61372 (October 25, 1979).
- 4. Licensee's objections to the aspect raised with regard to QASES Contention No. 2 are also appropriate for Contention No. 4 (integrity of spent fuel racks). If by long-term storage QASES is referring to storage after the expiration of Quad Cities Station's operating licenses, then this contention raises issues again clearly impermissible for this proceeding. Furthermore, the " difficulties in moving and shipping the racks from the site" are outside the scope of the proposed amendment. The requested amendment to the operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 does not entail the offsite movement or shipment of fuel assemblies. The only offsite movement of Quad Cities fuel assemblies contemplated is presently the subject of another contested NRC proceeding, before another Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
- 5. QASES Contention No. 5 appears to be copied from contentions filed by the State of Illinois in other spent fuel pool modification proceedings involving the Zion and Dresden Nuclear Stations. Cnmmnnwealth Edison Company (Zion Station Units 1 and 2) , LBP 80-7, 11 NRC 245 (1980).
The application filed for the Quad Cities Nuclear Station involves, however, an entirely different rack design than that considered in these other tuo proceedings. As the application shows, the rack design proposed for Qual Cities does not utilize "boral strinless steel rods." Accordingly, one good contention for this proceeding could not be drawn from this aspect.
- 6. QASES Contention No. 6 (earthquake) conceivably identifies an aspect from which one good contention might be
^
l l 1 l drawn. In order to satisfy the requirements for an admissible contention under 10 CFR S2.714(b), however, Petitioner will have to state the basis for this contention and establish a nexus between the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and operating basis earthquake (OBE) and the proposed modification. The SSE and OBE for the Quad Cities Nuclear Station were estab-lished at the operating license proceedings. Absent a showing of material supervening developments or some other special circumstance by Petitioner, these factual determinations are barred from further adjudicatory challenge by the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Alabama Power Com-gang (Joseph M. Farley Nr. clear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 212-13, remanded other crounds CLI-74-12, 7 AEC 203 (1974).
- 7. QASES Contention No. 7 (monitoring procedures) also conceivably identifies an aspect from which one good contention might be drawn. Petitioner has not, however, related uonitoring procedures to the proposed modification to the spent fuel pools.
- 8. .QASES Contention No. 8 (criticality) identifies an aspect appropriate for this proceeding. Howevar, Petitioner will have to state the basis for this contention and specify the reasons why the spent fuel storage configuration as proposcd is allegedly inadequate.
- 9. QASES Contention No. 9 (occupational exposure) identifies an aspect from which one good contention might be drawn. Again, in order to be admitted as a contention,
p Petitioner will have to satisfy the basis and specificity requirements set forth in 10 CFR 52.714(b). Licensees do not agree that the proposed amendment will result in any significant increase in the amount of defective fuel stored in the Quad Cities' spent fuel pools.
- 10. QASES Contention No. 10 (anti-sabotage and security, plan) does not raise an aspect from which a good contention can be drawn. Any contention alleging that this application must include anti-sabotage and security plans would have to be dismissed absent specification of a nexus between the proposed fuel pools modification and Licensee's security plan. Intervenor in the Zion spent fuel modifica-tion proceeding was unable to show any such nexus between spent fuel pool modifications and security. Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Station Units 1 and 2) , LBD 80-7, 11 NRC 245, 284-85.
- 11. QASES Contention No. 11 states that Licensees have failed to include a final environmental impact statement (EIS) in its application. In the absence of any significant l
effect on the human environment, the Staff is not required 1 to conduct an EIS. Portland General Electric Company (Trojan Nuclear Plant) ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263 (1979). Since l the proposed modification to the Quad Cities spent fuel pools will not lead to any substantial radiological releases to the environment or pose any danger to the public health ' and safety, an EIS is not required for the requested amendment. -
w 3 Northern States Power Company, (Frairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41, 44-45 (1978) romanded other grounds, State of Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Nevertheless, a contention based on the alleged need for the NRC to prepare an EIS would probably be a valid contention in this proceeding, since Licensees are not allowed to prejudge the outcome of the NRC Staff's environmental review. Concumers Power Ccm-gany (Big Rock Nuclear Plant) , ALAB-636, NRC (1981).
- 12. Licensees acknowledge that it might be pos-sible to draw one good contention from the aspect raised in Contention 12 (offsite radiological impacts). As written, however, this contention would not be admissible because it fails to meet the basis and specificity requirements set forth in 10 CFR S2.714(b). Petitioner will need to state the reasons for alleging that Licensees' evaluation of offsite radiological impacts are inadequate.
- 2. Comments on Aspects Raised in the Petition Filed on Behalf of OAER:
- 1. QAER Contention No. 1 is a statement of alleged fact and does not raise an issue which can be adjudicated. ,
- 2. OAER Contentions Nos. 2-4 consist of conclusory statements and fail to raise issues related to the proposed spent fuel pool modifica+1ons the subject of this proceeding.
Inasmuch as these contentions allege current dangers due to _ j the Quad Cities Nuclear Station, Petitioner seeks to rehash 4
the safety and environmental review already conducted for the Quad Cities units at the construction and operating license stage. This is of course impermissible. Portland General Electric Company (Trofan Nuclear Plant) ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263 (1979).
- 3. Contenti:n No. 5, which asserts potential environmental pollution, and Contention No. 2, if read to raise concerns about health effects due to radiological releases, might identify aspects from which admissible contentions could be drawn. As written, however, contentions 2 and 5 do not satisfy the basis and specificity requirements of 2. 714 (b) .
- 4. OAER Contention No. 6 (seismic) conceivably raises an aspect from which one good contention might to drawn. Again, in order to satisfy the requirements for an admissible contention, Petitioner will have to state the basis for this contention and establish the nexus between the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and operating basis earthquake (OBE) and thr: proposed modification. As noted earlier, the SSE and OBE were matters considered at the operating license proceeding for the Quad Cities Nuclear Station and Petitioner is barred from raising these issues by the principles of collateral estoppel and res judicata unless Petitioner establishes material supervening develop-ments or other special circumstances. 31abama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 212-13 (1974).
l
- 5. OAER Contention No. 7 (occupational exposure) also identifies an aspect from which one good contention might be drawn. As currently drafted, however, this con-tention does not satisfy the basis and specificity require-ments set forth in 10 CFR S2.714 (b) .
- 6. Contention No. 8 raises the concern - that the
. Cordova area might become a repository for radioactive waste. This issue is entirely unrelated to the instant proceeding. The proposed amenduent to the operating licenses for the Quad Cities units does not involve the transshipment of any nuclear fuel. Although Licensees have requested authority to transship fuel between Dresden and Quad Cities Nuclear Stations, this application is being reviewed in 4
another contested proceeding before another Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Moreover, this licensing board is not authorized to consider any issues with respect to the even-tual permanent disposal of radioactive wastes. 44 Fed. Reg. 61372 (Oct. 25, 1979); See Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant) LBP-BO-25, 12 NRC 355, 365-66 (1980).
- 7. OAER Contention No. 9 also raises an issue entirely unrelated to this proceeding. As noted above, the
- requested amendment does not entail the offsite movement or shipment of fuel assemblies. As stated in paragraph 6, abcVe, the only transshipment of spent fuel between the Quad Cities Station and other nuclear stations contemplated is currently the subject of another NRC proceeding.
a e- * - - e t- e w- -----e p-v v e - T wpt
- e siww e t-p
- ws* *r7at- sNar-
l
- b. OAER Contention No. 10 raises the issue of Licensees' financial capability to be " ready and able to make the necessary, costly adjustments, if and when the storage facility requires major alteration and repair." The Licensees' financial capability to implement the proposed modifications and effect any repairs which might potentially be necessary is not a proper subject for this proceeding.
There is no basis for a contemporaneous examination of Licensees' solvency, a matter that was initially examined when the construction permit and original license were granted. Sea, Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), CBP-80-4, 11 NRC 117 (1980).
- 3. Comments on Aspects Raised in the Petition Filed on Behalf of CSE:
- 1. The first aspect raised in the petition filed on behalf of CSE is that Licensees' application and sup-porting documentation "does not indicate the ultimate effects of storing large amounts of spent fuel for long undetermined time periods." Again, similarly to QASES Contention No. 2, if petitioner is referring to the storage of spent fuel beyond the duration of the operating licenses for Quad Cities Nuclear Station, this contention attempts to raise issues which cannot be litigated in adjudicative proceedings before licensing boards. 44 Fed. Reg. 61372 (October 25, 1979).
Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant) LBP-80-25, 12 NRC 355, 365-66 (1980). On the other hand, if ~ l l petitioner's statement refers to the storage of spent fuel 1 1 I
. }
~
~
.during the operating life of Quad Cities, then it might be possible to draft one good contention within the scope of this aspect.
- 2. Petitioner alleges that granting the proposed operating license amendment will " undermine the effect of the developing generic EIS regarding the permanent and pre-ferred disposition of spent fuel." This is a conclusory statement and fails to raise an issue appropriate for adjudi-cation in this proceeding. Moreover, licensing Boards have been instructed not to suspend proceedings involving increasing the interim storage capacity of spent fuel in light of the generic NRC rulemaking proceeding addressing the permanent
-disposition of nuclear waste. 44 Fed. Reg. 61372 (Oct. 25, 1979).
- 3. Petitioner states that Licensees' application and supporting documentation does not address "all alter-natives for managing the spent fuel problem in the short term." Alternatives need only be considered if the proposed ac' tion will have a significant effect on the human environ-ment. Since the proposed modification of the Quad Cities j spent fuel pools will not lead to substantial radiological l
l releases to the environment or pose any danger to the public health and safety, Licensee and the NRC Staff need not address the short term alternatives to the proposed spent fuel pool modification. See, Portland General Electric i Company (Trojan Nuclear Plant) ALAE-531, 9 NRC 263 (1979). _ Nevertheless, a contention based-on the alleged need to I 1
-l
-)
i l evaluate the alternatives to the proposed modification the subject of this proceeding would probably be valid since Licensing Boards are not permitted to prejudge the outcome of the NRC Staff's environmental review. Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Nuclear Plant) ALAB-636, NRC
- (1981).
- 4. Petitioner also faults Licensees' application for not having explored "the alternative of curtailing pre-sent output from the Quad Cities Station either in conjunction with energy conservation and pricing alternatives . . . or in conjunction with increasing the use of under* utilized fossil fuel plants . . . ." This aspect raises issues clearly impermissible in this proceeding. Licensees' appli-cation requests authorization to modify the Quad Cities Nuclear Station's spent fuel pools in order to increase this Station's interim spent fuel storage capacity. Licensees have not requested authority to extend the operating life of this station beyond that originally authorized. The issuance of the operating licenses for the two Quad Cities units was preceded by a full environmental review, including considera-tion of alternatives. "Nothing in NEPA . . . dictates that the same ground be wholly replowed in connection with a proposed amendment . . . ." Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, 7 NRC at 46, fn. 4, remanded other grounds, State of Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Absent any significant effect on the human environment, licensing
-boards are not required to consider the alternatives of
4
. l 1
l l shutting down or curtailing the output of nuclear power stations. Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Nuclear Sta-tion, Units 1 and 2) LBP-80-7, 11 NRC 245, 255-56, 294-5 (1980).
- 5. Petitioner alleges Licensees must show that they are " financially capable of meeting the costs of eventual disposal of the spent fuel wastes . . . As noted in Lican-sees' objections to QASES contention No. 3, the economic issues regarding the permanent disposal of nuclear waste are the subject of a generic NRC rulemaking proceeding and there-fore may not be addressed in this proceeding. 44 Fed. Reg. 61372, 61373 (October 25, 1979); Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant) LBP-80-25, 12 NRC 355, 365-66 (1980).
- 6. Petitioner similarly alleges that Licensees should be required to " provide a fund or security to cover costs of waste disposal." This statement also attempts to raise an issue relating to the permanent storage and disposal of nuclear waste, and as such is also impermissible in this proceeding. 44 Fed. Reg. 61372, 61373 (October 25, 1979).
- 7. Petitioner contends that " licensee [s] should i
be required to provide a fund for reimbursement over and I above that which the Price Anderson Act allows . . . . The aspect which Petitioner here identifies attempts to question the adequacy of the remedy afforded by the Price Anderson l Act. Parties are precluded from challenging either the Com-mission's regulations or statutes in individual licensing - proceedings. Accordingly, issues which mount an attack on l l
the Price Anderson Act are impermissible. Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Nuclear Plant) LBP-80-4, 11 NRC 117, 132 (1980).
- 8. Petitioner next argues that " licensee should be required to submit cost evaluations for handling, trans-portation, storage, disposal and surveillance of excess spent fuel." Licensees do not understand what Petitioner means by " excess spent fuel." The purpose of the modifications to the Quad Cities spent fuel pools the subject of this proceeding is to ensure adequate interim storage for the spent fuel generated during the operational life of the Quad l
Cities Nuclear Station. No additional spent fuel will be generated due to the proposed modifications; therefore that there sill be no " excess" fuel. Furthermore, cost of the requested modifications is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding absent a showing of environ-mentally preferable alternat3"es tc the proposed action. Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) , l ALAB-458, 7 NRC 155, 162-3 (1978).
- 9. Petitioners request for clarification of the monitoring system conceivably identifies an aspect from l
which one good contention might be drawn. Petitioner has not, however, related monitoring procedures to the proposed l t modification to the spent fuel pools.
- 10. Petitioner's statement that "[t]he amendment request by the Licensee does not adequately discuss: [t]he _
amount of radioactive materials omitted including a derinition
' of negligible, the procedure by which negligible amounts of radioactivity are quantified, methods of detecting a loss of ;
neutron material and swelling of stainless steel rods in storage racks" appears to be copied from contentions filed by the State of Illinois in the spent fuel pool modification proceeding involving the Zion Nuclear Station. Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Station Units 1 and 2) LBP-80-7, 11 NRC 245 (1980). As noted earlier, the application filed for the Quad Cities Nuclear Station involves an entirely different rack design than that considered in the Zion proceeding. As the application shows, the rack design proposed for Quad Cities does not utilize " stainless steel rods." Nor does the application use the word " negligible" for discussing radioactive materials. Consequently, one good contention for this proceeding could not be drawn from this aspect.
- 11. Petitionar's statement that Licensees should monitor ground water covement for leaking conceivably iden-tifies an aspect from which one good contention might be drawn. In order to satisfy the basis requirements of 10 CFR S 2. 714 (b) , however, Petitioner will have to provide some basis for believing that there is a possibility of leakage from the spent fuel pools to the ground water.
- 12. Petitioner's contention that there has been inadequate di scussion of c;.anging the rack configuration in a pool where damaged fuel is stored may identify an aspect from which one good contention could be drawn. As presently -
l l
1
. 9-drafted, however, this contention does not satisfy the basis and specificity requirements of 10 CFR S2.714 (b) .
- 13. Petitioner's concern that there "has been insufficient consideration of potential occupational hazards to workers. installing" the proposed racks identifies an Again, aspect from which one good contention can be drawn.
in order to be admitted as a contention, Petitioner will have to satisfy the basis and specificity requirements set forth in 10 CFR 52.714 (b) .
- 14. Petitioner is unclear when it alleges Licensees "should discuss the effects of damaged fuel on a pool con-taining addition [al] fuel elements in compacted racks."
Licensees do not agree that the proposed modifications will result in any significant increase in the amount of defective fuel stored in the Quad Cities spent fuel pools. Petitioner will have to state the basis for this contention and specify why " damaged" fuel is of concern.
- 15. Similarly, Petitioner argues that Licensee should discuss "possible hazards and credible accidents involving release of additional radiation . . . from defective fuel stored in the pool." This statement might arguably identify an aspect from which one good contention might be drawn. It does not, however, satisfy the contention require-ments of 10 CFR S2.714 (b) . In order to satisfy these require-ments, Petitioner will not only have to describe the "possible hazards" and " credible accidents" being referred to, but will additionally have to rslate these conditions to the proposed spent fuel pool modifications.
- 16. Petitioner next alleges that there has not been sufficient consideration of "the hazards from exposure to workers to increased radiation when workers perform routine maintenance and/or special functions to contain excess radiation emanating from damaged spent fuel." Licen-
' sees do not agree that the proposed amendments will result in any significant increase in the amount of " damaged" fuel stored in the spent fuel pools. Nonetheless, one good con-tention might conceivably be drawn from this aspect. In order to do this, however, Petitioner will have to specify j
the basis for this contention and causally connect the pro-posed spent fuel pool modifications to increases in radiation exposure to workers due to damaged fuel.
- 17. Petitioner's allegations that the application inadequately discusses Licensees' quality assurance programs and inspection procedures identifies an aspect from which one good contention can be drawn. As drafted, these aspects do not satisfy the basis and specificity requirements set forth in 10 CFR 52.714 (b) .
In summary, many of the aspects identified in the petitions filed on behalf of QASES, OAER and LSE appear to be copied from contentions filed by the State of Illinois in other spent fuel poo~ modification proceedings involving the Zion and Dresden Nuclear Stations. Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Station Units 1 and 2). LBP 80-7, 11 NRC 245 I (1980). In these previous proceedings exhaustive testimony, - l both written and oral, was taken.and a complete record compiled.
. . .- . ~. - _ . _ . _ _ - _ , _ _ _ _ _ _. _ . _ , . - _ , _ . _ _ _ . . . __
P l After close scrutiny of the record, the Licensing Board ruled in favor of Licensees' proposed modification. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Station Units 1 and 2) ALAB-616, 12 NRC 419 (1980). It is Licensee's belief that if Petitioners review these decisions that many of their concerns may be assuaged. Therefore, we will be sending Petitioners copies of these decisions in the near future. It would be unfortunate if the Commission has to relitigate many. of these issues, p Finally, the petitions filed on behalf of QASES,- I OAER and CSE attempt to reserve the right to modify, amend, add or delete contentions. Pursuant to 10 CFR S2.714 Peti-tioners are given the right to alter their contentions "without prior approval of the presiding officer at any time up to fifteen (15) days prior to the holding of the special prehearing conference pursuant to 52.751(a), or where no special prehearing conference is held, fifteen (15) days j prior to the holding of the first prehearing conference." I j Af ter this deadline, Petitioners may only amend their con-tentions upon approval by the Licensing Board, based on the balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR S2.714 (a) (1) . ! Respectfully submitted, DATED: June 12, 1981 U, E.,. I . K,.' . . Robert Gt Fitzgibbons,uy. ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE One of the Attorneys for ~ One First National Plaza the Licensees Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 558-7500
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
In the Matter of )
} Docket Nos. 50-254-SP COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) 50-265-SP (Quad Cit.ies Station, Units ) (Spent Fuel Pool Modification) 2 and 3) )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attor-
- ney herewith enters his appearance on behalf of Licensees, Commonwealth Edison Company and Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric Company, in the above-captioned proceeding. In accordance with 10 CFR S2.713, the following information is provided:
Name: David M. Stahl Address: Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 4 Telephone Number: (312) 558-7500 Admissions: Supreme Court of Illinois ' United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit and District of Columbia) , Unitcd States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois e
/ '
! / .
- .. ,/ ,
N h!' ) \ ' David M. Stahl DATED: June 12, 1981 - ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 558-7500
r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
) l In the Matter of '
) Docket Nos. 50-254-SP COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) 50-265-SP (Quad Cities Station, Units ) (Spent Fuel Pool Modification) 2 and 3) )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attor-ney herewith enters his appearance on behalf of Licensees, Commonwealth Edison Company and Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric Company, in the above-captioned proceeding. In accordance with 10 CFR 52.713, the following information is provided: Name: Philip P. Steptoe Add.ess:
- Isham, Lincoln &-Beale One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone Number: (312) 558-7500 Admissions: Supreme Court of Illinois Supreme Court of Virginia United States District Court for th p orthern District of Illinois
} '
7
!i il. .
,1 i
~~ . , s
/Q< & '"A . '. 'yQ PhilppP. Steptoe DATED: June 12, 1981 ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEnLE One First National Plaza _
Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 l (312) 558-7500 l .
i
\ ^ .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of. )
) Docket Nos. 50-254-SP
) 50-265-SP COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Quad Cities Station, Units ) (Spent Fuel Pool Modification) 2 and 3) )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attor-ney herewith enters his appearance on be!alf of Licensees, Commonwealth Edison Company and Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric Company, in the abcVe-captioned pwceeding. In accordance with 10 CFR 52.713, the following information is provided: Name: Robert G. Fitzgibbons, Jr. Address: Isham, Lincoln & Be?.le One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone Number: (312) 558-7500 Admissiors: Supreme Court of Illinois United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois i a LL7' -? Robert G. Fitzgibbons, Jr. l DATED: June 12, 1981 l ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE l One First National Plaza - Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 l (312) 558-7500 t i
c 4 6/12/81 UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-254-SP COMMONWEALTH EDISON CCMPANY ) 50-265-SP (Quad Cities Staticn, Units ) (Spent Fuel Pool Modification) 2 and 3) )
DESIGNATION Pursuant to 10 CFR S2.708(e) service of all documents to be filed on Licenseas in this proceeding i shall be nailed to: Robert G. Fitzgibbons, Jr. Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 t_Lt- % ,- t_ . , , , Robert G.- Fitz%bbons, \JE One of the Attorneys for Licensees 1 l j i ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE One First National Plaza Suite 4200 l Chicago, Illinois 60603 l - 312/558-7500 4% _
> -UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
) Docket Noc. 50-254-SP COMMONWEA!.TH EOISON COMPANY ; 50-265-SP (Quad Cities Station, Units ) (Spent Fuel Pool Modification) 2 and 3) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that Licensee's Answer to the Petiti.ons to Intervene of Qaad-City Alliance For Safe Energy and Sarvival, Citzens For Safe Energy and Older Americans for I;1derly Rights, together with Notices of Appearance for David M. Stahl, Philip P. Steptoe and Robert G. Fitzgibbons, Jr. and Designation have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 12th day of June, 1981. James L. Felley Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safer.y and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Muclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Dr. Peter A. Morris U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard Goddard Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of Executive Legal Director Dr.. Richard F. Foster U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box 4263 Commission Sunriver, Oregon -97701 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing John S. Smith Board Panel Older Americans for Elderly U.S. Nuclear'Pegulatory Rights Commission 1806-Second Avenue Washington, D. C. .20555 Rock Island, Illinois 61201
, - * +e = *
(-.
^0 .
1 s y Marily;r Bos Citizens for Safe Energy P.O Box 23 s Hillsdale, Illinois 61257
- Robert Romic
~
- . 628 Grant' Street:
' Bettendorf, Iowa 52722
' O,
.,( r ..: r.
m y., 1 f l 1 t r 4 1 l i
?
t l i h l' c f~ r u 1 ) i 4 5 . F w '
, - +- p .-,,- , - . . .-,.-y.-y,. _, , -.,e-,-,,, ,, , , . ~ -
.m...,,w~,..y,- . - - . - . .w. , + , , ,,,,er..., ve,,.-,_%,v,..,~,v ,,e,-..-
'}}