ML20054F987
| ML20054F987 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1982 |
| From: | Baxter T CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054F959 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206180302 | |
| Download: ML20054F987 (26) | |
Text
-
.o Ca , . ,
' r
- O "ll l , ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ?
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION TO INTERVENE BY KODZU ALLIANCE Gecrge F. Trowbridge, P.C.
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
John H. O'Neill, Jr.
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Counsel for Applicants June 15, 1982 8206180302 820615 PDRADOCK05000go C
j
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INDEX....................................................... 11 I. INTRODUCTION............................................ 1 II. RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS................................. 2 A. Requirements for Contentions....................... 2 B. Need for Power, Alternative Energy Sources, Cost-Benefit Analysis..................... 2
- 1. Need for Power (Contentions 8-10)............. 3
- 2. Cost Benefit Analysis (Contention 3).......... 4 C. Health Effects (Contention 1)...................... S t
l D. Risk Assessment / Accident Analysis (Contention 2)..................................... 7 l
i E. Plant Design (Contention 14, 15)................... 9 F. Emergency Planning (Contention 13)................ 11 G. Security Plan (Contention 12)..................... 13 H. Management Capability (Contentions 4-7)........... 18 I. Municipal Power Agency (Contention 11)............ 20 1
! III. CONCLUSION............................................. 22
-i-
INDEX Contention Page 1 5 2 7 3 4 4 18 l 5 19 6 19 7 19 8 3 9 3 10 3 11 20 12 13 l 13 11 14 9 15 9 l
l l
i t
-ii- .
l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION TO INTERVENE BY KUDZU ALLIANCE I. INTRODUCTION By a pleading entitled " Kudzu Alliance's Supplement to Petition to Intervene," dated May 14, 1982, the Kudzu Alliance
(" Kudzu" or " Petitioner") proposed 15 enumerated contentions.
Applicants Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency herein present their response to the contentions proposed by Kudzu.
Seven prospective intervenors in the above-captioned proceeding have filed proposed contentions. Many of the proposed contentions duplicate similar issues raised by other petitioners. Mr. Wells Eddleman proposed approximately 135 i
( enumerated contentions which are addressed in " Applicants' Response to Supplement to Petition to Intervene by Wells Eddleman" (hereinaf ter referred to as " Applicants' Response to
Eddlemtn"), which has bacn filcd with all pro:p;ctiva partiGO contemporaneous 1y with this response. Most of the issues raised by Kudzu are subsumed in contentions proposed by Mr.
Eddleman. Thus, rather than duplicating the detailed responses to Mr. Eddleman's similar contentions here, Applicants have liberally cross-referenced to the discussion in Applicants' Response to Eddleman.
II. RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS A. Requirements for Contentions See Applicants' Response to Eddleman, at 2-15, for a general discussion of the legal requirements which proposed contentions must meet in order to be admitted for adjudication in this proceeding.
B. Need for Power, Alternative Energy Sources, Cost-Benefit Analysis .
At Applicants' Response to Eddleman,Section II.B (introduction), we discussed in some detail (1) the
[
l Commission's new rule proscribing the interjection of need for power and alternative energy source issues in the" operating
- license proceeding, (2) the impact of that rule on the NEPA cost-benefit balance, and (3) the lack of jurisdiction of this Board to entertain motions to halt construction of the Harris Plant.1! Kudzu proposes three contentions which challenge the 1
1/ For the reasons expressed there, Applicants oppose Kudzu's request (Petition at 11) to suspend construction and to schedule an expedited hearing on need for power issues.
l =
need for power and the cost-benefit balance struck at the construction permit proceeding. One contention seeks a recognition of the economic cost of Class 9 accidents. For the reasons discussed below, all four contentions are inappropri-ately raised in this proceeding.
- 1. Need for Power (Conten'tions 8-10)
Contention 8 asserts that a comparison of the costs for Harris Units 1 and 2 with the economic value of the benefits results in costs that exceed the benefits by S3 billion.
Petition at 6-7. Contention 9 seeks to attack the need for power from the Harris Plant by arguing that price elasticities of electric demand, once the cost of the Harris Plant is reficcted in rates, will obviate the need for the Plant.
Petition at 7-8. Contention 10 contends that the " conservation benefits from plant cancellation . . . can be obtained at considerably less cost than the conservation benefits from electricity price increases resulting from constructing and operating Harris Units 1 and 2." Petition at 8. All three contentions seek cancellation of the construction Of the Harris Plant.
Kudz, Contention 8 raises the same issues as Eddleman Contentions 15, 16 and 17. Kudzu Contention 9 is essentially identical to Eddleman Contention 14. Kudzu Contention 10 repeats Eddleman Contention 21. For the reasons set forth in 9
t
Applicants' Response to Eddleman at section II.B (introduction) and Eddleman proposed Contentions 14-17 and 21, these_three contentions are not cognizable in this operating license proceeding. Furthermore, this Board has no authority over the construction of the Harris Plant. Kudzu Contentions 7- 8 and 9 must therefore be rejected as impermissible challenges to 10 C.F.R. S 51.53(c).
- 2. Cost-Benefit Analysis (Contention 3)
Contention 3 states: "The economic costs of a severe accident with release of radiation to the environment (a so-called Class 9 accident) were not considered in the con-struction permit review for Shearon Harris." Petition at 4.
In the Commission's statement of interim policy on " Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969" (45 Fed. Reg. 40101 (1980)),
the Commission directed that the Staff consider the envi-ronmental risk (impact) attributable to accidents at a particu-lar facility within the scope of each environmental impact statement prepared after the Statement of Interim Policy. It is anticipated that the NRC Staff will provide such a reasoned consideration of environmental risks, including the probability of occurrence of releases and the probability of occurrence of environmental consequences of such releases. Until the Staff issues the Draft Environmental Statement, any contention regarding this issue is premature.
After the Staff releases its Draft Environmental Statement, Kudzu may within a reasonable time file proposed
~
contentions based on the new information presented in the Draf t Environmental Statement regarding the environmental impacts of Class 9 Accidents. Applicants will stipulate that such contentions will not be challenged as untimely filed and may be admitted by the Board if four.d to state an issue with basis and requisite specificity, based on new information, that is cognizable before the Board in the operating license pro-ceeding.
C. Health Effects (Contention 1)
Kudzu's first proposed contention is a radiological health offects contention relating to normal plant operation.
Petition at 2-3. In Contention 1, Kudzu alleges that the long term somatic and genetic health effects of radiation releases from Shearon Harris during normal operation have been seriously underestimated, even where such releases are within existing guidelines. Applicants do not understand this contention to challenge Appendix I (to 10 C.F.R. Part 50) permissible release i
rates, which would be an impermissible challenge to NRC regulations. Rather, the proposed contention challenges the NRC Staff's analysis for purposes of the NEPA cost-benefit balance of the health effects of doses received from normal operation, as well as the Staff's dose (food chain)
O
calculations. Applicants object to the admission of Contention 1.
The bases for proposed contention 1 are insufficiently specified. The Commission has stated that, as a matter of policy, repeated litigation of the health effects from releases within Appendix I limits is unnecessary and should be avoided.
Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-31, 12 N.R.C. 264, 277 (1980). In view of the thorough consideration of the health effects of radiation in the Appendix I rulemaking proceeding, " litigation regarding these issues need not begin on a clean slate." Id. Rather, licensing boards are directed by the Commission to "take official notice of the environmental record compiled in the Appendix I rulemaking in reaching conclusions as to the health effects from releases within Appendix I." Id.
Intervenor Kudzu has not met its burden of establishing the specific information not considered in the Appendix I r?tlemaking which it believes undermines the bases for that rule. Kudzu refers to Dr. Karl Z. Morgan as an individual who has " attacked the BEIR report." Petition at 2. The specific issue in that Report in question is not stated, nor is the edition of the BEIR Report in question. Similarly, Kudzu refers to a book pablished in 1981 by Dr. Gofman. However, Dr.
Gofman's book is over 800 pages long, and covers a myriad of topics. Kudzu's complaint is only the general criticism that
"[t]he NRC's analysis also underestimates the health effects of radiation doses actually received." Id. at 3. This vague allegaticn in no way alerts Applicants as to what specific concern Kudzu seeks to litigate here. Kudzu then cites Mancuso, Stewart and Kneale; however, no reference material is cited.
Finally, Kudzu refers to the study by Bernd Franke of the University of Heidelberg as a basis for doubting the validity of the NRC Staff's food chain calculations. But Kudzu does not explain what it relies on in the Heidelberg study, or what calculations it is challenging. In summary, Applicants believe more of a showing must be made by Kudzu to admit Contention 1, which challenges the basis for the well-founded Appendix I criteria. The proposed contention lacks basis with the requisite specificity and should not be admitted.
D. Risk Assessment / Accident Analysis (Contention 2)
Kudzu proposed Contention 2 claims that Applicants and the Staff have failed to adequately assess the impacts of a beyond design basis accident at the facilitiy. Applicants have extensively addressed the issue of litigating, in this pro-ceeding, consideration of beyond design basis accidents in our response to Mr . Eddleman's contentions, and that discussion is
, incorporated herein by reference. See Applicants' Response to Eddleman, introduction to section II.H.
In brief, Applicants object to the admission of this contention as lacking specificity and basis, as well as presenting a challenge to the Commission's design criteria and regulatory requirements established to provide reasonable assurance of protecting the public health and cafety. Kudzu Contention 2 fails to make an3 showing of special circumstances at the Harris Plant which would be required in order to l
litigate a beyond-design-basis accident scenario, nor does Kudzu attempt to set forth a particular credible accident scenario. Further, Kudzu references unspecified inadequacies in WASH-1400 as the basis for its assertion that Applicants' accident analysis is insufficient, but makes no attempt to link this criticism specifically to the Harris Plant. As noted in our response to Eddleman proposeo Contention 125, WASH-1400 did not serve as the basis for the accident anal3 aes in Section 15 of the FSAR.S! Finally, with respect to the reference in Kudzu proposed Contention 2 to the Commission's Statement of Interim Policy, Applicants note that this Statement, while requiring the Staff to consider beyond-design-basis accidents in its environmental statement, does not require these im' pacts to be l assessed in Applicants' Environmental Report for the Harris l
l
[
2/ To the extent that Kudzu is attempting to link WASH-1400 with the accident analysis performed for NEPA purposes, we note that the Commission has explicitly stated that WASH-1400 did not form the basis for the previous exclusion of Class 9 events during the NEPA review. See 45 Fed. Reg. 40101, 40102 (1980).
I 1
plant. See Applicants' Response to Eddleman, introduction to section II.H. The admission of contentions concerning the environmental impacts of such accidents would be premature until the publication of ' Staff's Draft Environm mtal Statement. This proposed contention should not, therefore, be admitted.
E. Plant Design (Contentions 14, 15)
Kudzu proposed Contention 14, on the adequacy of radiolog-ical monitoring at the Harris plant, is virtually identical to the material portion of Eddleman Contention 1. Applicants oppose the admission of Kudzu proposed Contention 14, and incorporate by reference here their response to Eddleman proposed Contention 1.
Kudzu Contention 15 asserts that Applicants must install and operate, at every discharge point from the Harris plant of both gaseous and liquid effluents, equipment that can analyze not only the rate of emission, but also the type and amount of each radionuclide being emitted. Petition at 10-11. Appli-cants object to the admission of proposed Contention 15.
Kudzu offers no basis in support of its demand in this l contention that every SHNPP discharge point, and all types and quantities of radionuclides discharged, be monitored. Also, proposed Contention 15 lacks specificity. Kudzu says that the information it demands for federal, state and local agencies to I -
l 1
protect the health and safety is necessary; however Kudzu cites no authority in support of this proposition. To Applicants' knowledge, there is none. Rather, the NRC requires that an applicant meet the 10 C.F.R. Part 20 release limits. Also, Part 50 of the Commission's regulations requires an applicant to include in its FSAR a description of the design of the equipment to be installed to maintain control of radioactive releases. 10 C.F.R. S 50.34a. An applicant must then submit twice annually to the NRC a report specifying the quantity of each principal radionuclide released in liquid and in gaseous effluents. 10 C.F.R. S 50.36a. The Commission's regulations focus upon identifying the principal radionuclides. See, e.g.,
10 C.F.R. S 50.34 afb)(2). Applicantc' FSAR states that the SHNPP effluent radiological monitoring system is designed to perform in accordance with the requirements of Parts 20 and 50, along with specified general design criteria and regulatory guides. FSAR S 11.5.1.2. Kudzu Contention 15 does not even address Applicants' monitoring system, as set forth in the FSAR. In this respect, it lacks specificity for failing to focus on the plant moni oring system at issue here~. Finally, Kudzu's reference to the "well-established" principle that "different radionuclides hace substantially different physical and biological effecta on livi.'g organisms" is irrelevant.
Petition at 11. With this truism f n mind, the question is whether Kudzu has presented any legitimate basis for i
challenging the adequacy of the radiological monitoring system designed for the Shearon Harris facility. Kudzu has not. Its contention should therefore be rejected.
F. Emergency Planning (Contention 13)
Kudzu proposed Contention 13 asserts that Applicants have "not provided reasonable assurances that adequate protective measures can and will be taken" in an emergency. hadzu further notes that neither evacuation nor relocation plans are curren-tly available. Finally, Kudzu alleges that there is no indication of any intention to test the emergency plans when developed. Petition at 9-10.
Kudzu's generalized assertion that Applicants have not provided assurances that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in an emergency is objectionable as a broad
" catch-all" assertion which simply restates the ultimate emergency planning issue, and fails to give the other parties any notice whatsoever of even the general aspects of emergency planning which Kudzu seeks to litigate. Thus, this portion of the contention plainly lacks the specificity requi' red of a contention under the Commission's regulations. While it is not appropriate to admit this portion of Contention 13 as presently worded, Applicants recognize that the issuance of draft emergency plans will constitute good cause for the filing of new contentions. The appropriate course, then, is for Kudzu to l
l
review the emergency plans and then submit specific contentions, if any, with respect to any deficiencies it identifies in the emergency plans.
Applicants also oppose the admission of Kudzu's assertion as to relocation plans. First, the statement that such plans are not now available is an uncontested assertion of fact, inappropriate for litigation. Further, if Kudzu is calling for l
plans for permanent relocation of the public in the event of a nuclear disaster, this part of the contention constitutes an impermissible attack on the Commission's emergency planning rules, since the rules do not require plans for such reloca-tion. See Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP , 15 N.R.C. , slip. op. at 34 (March 5, 1982).
Finally, Applicants oppose the admission of that portion of Kudzu's contention which asserts that there is no indication of any intention to test the emergency plans. Contrary to Kudzu's allegation, a program of emergency planning exercises and drills which complies with the Commission's regulations is described in section 13.3.8.1.5 of the FSAR. Kudzu has failed l
l to identify any deficiencies in the exercise / drill program described there; indeed, Kudzu has not even referenced that section of the FSAR. Thus, that portion of proposed Conten-tion 13 which deals with emergency plan exercises should be rejected as lacking in specificity and bases.
i w---- -- - , _ , - - ,-w. - - ---g, - - - - m- + - - -
Accordingly, for all the stated reasons, Kudzu proposed Contention 13 should be rejected in its entirety.
G. Security Plan (Contention 12)
In Kudzu proposed Contention 12, Petitioner seeks to litigate the adequacy of Applicants' security plan for the Harris plant. Petition at 9. For the reasons set forth below relating to the sensitivity of the security plan, Applicants request the Board to defer ruling on the admissibility of proposed security plan contentions until additional information has been furnished to the Board by the Petitioners. Applicants request, therefore, that they be permitted to defer responding to such proposed contentions until further Board instructions.
There are certain specific threshold requirements which must be met before an intervenor may have access to and litigate any aspect of an applicant's security.
A security plan for a nuclear facility is highly sensi-tive, confidential information as to which Commission regula-tions demand protection from disclosure. 10 C.F.R. SS 2.790, 73.21. While alleged inadequacies in a security plan may be cognizable contentions in a licensing proceeding, disclosure of the plan is permissible only to the extent deemed necessary by the presiding officer to a proper decision in the proceeding and only if made subject to carefully fashioned protective neasures. 10 C.F.R. S 2.744. See Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-410, 5 N.R.C. 1398 (1977).
The Appeal Board has established guidelines, endorsed by the Commission,3/ which prescribe the conditions under which and the extent to which a security plan may be disclosed.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2), ALAB-592, 11 N.R.C. 746 (1980); ALAB-410, supra.
First, to the extent that any portion of the plan is disclosed, disclosure is limited to a " sanitized" version of such portion of the plan, i.e., one from which has been deleted all details not necessary for proper evaluation of its ade-quacy. Diablo Canyon, supra, ALAB-410, 5 N.R.C. at 1405.
1 i Second, disclosure is to be limited to those portions of the plan which the intervenor demonstrates to be relevant to and necessary for the litigation of his contention. See Diablo Canyon, supra, ALAB-410, 5 N.R.C. at 1404, 1405. As the Appeal Board stated in Diablo Canyon, the issue of whether a security plan may be disclosed must be resolved by "a balancing of the interests of the person . . . urging nondisclosure and the public interest in disclosure. 10 C.F.R. S 2.790(a)." 5 N.R.C. at 1402, 1403. One of the means by which these 3/ Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units Nos. 1 and 2), CLI-80-24, 11 N.R.C. 775, 777 (1980).
competing interests are balanced is the limiting of an intervenor's access to those portions of the plan which are relevant to the issue he wishes to litigate. Applicants submit that if the public interest and the common defense and security are to be preserved, wholesale disclosure of the security plan is not acceptable. Applicants understand that an intervenor may be unable to articulate a contention concerning the security plan with the degree of specificity required under 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(b) until the intervenor has had access to the plan. Applicants urge, however, that in view of the important interests to be protected, an intervenor must meet a threshold level of minimal specificity by identifying the particular areas of the plan as to which the intervenor is concerned.
Only in that way can disclosure be limited to relevant portions of the plan.
Third, the intervenor has the burden of demonstrating that the plan will be reviewed by an expert witness who possesses the technical expertise to ' evaluate the portions of the plan as to which disclosure is sought. Disclosure is to be limited to those portions of the plan which the intervenor's. expert witness is competent to evaluate. ALAB-410, suora, 5 N.R.C. at 1404, 1406.
To the extent disclosure is ordered, it must be accom-plished pursuant to a protective order and affidavits of l nondisclosure such as those issued and signed in Diablo Canyon, l
l i
l l l
e
supra, Appeal Board " Protective Order on Security Plan Information" (April 3, 1980), ALAB-410, 5 N.R.C. at 1404, 1406.
Of key importance here is whether a protective order will offer adequate security, i.e., whether the proposed recipient of the information is likely to abide by such an order. See id at 1404. In addition to the intervenor's expert witness, therefore, access to a security plan has been limited to counsel for the intervenor. See id. at 1405. As the Appeal Board noted in ALAB-592, "the law presumes that counsel will abide by their oaths and comply with protective orders." 11 N.R.C. at 751. In the instant proceeding, to the extent that disclosure of any aspect of the Harris security plan is otherwise warranted, access to the plan should be limited to the Kudzu Alliance, the only petitioner which is represented by counsel. With respect to the other three intervenors which have raised issues regarding the Harris plant security plan, there do not exist meaningful restraints which correspond to the lawyer's ethical obligation as an officer of the courts to adhere to the letter of such a protective order.
Having established the principles governing the admissibility generally of contentions concerning Applicants' security plan for the Harris plant, Applicants believe that it is premature to address the issue of the admissibility of u y of the proposed contentions relating to the security plan.
, Rather, Applicants urge that the better course would be that l
l l
l
~
l .
adopted by the Licensing Board in the Catawba proceeding whereby the Board wiked the petitioners to consider the ,
procedural complexities and costs associated with raising security plan issues and to advise the Board within a pre-scribed time as to whether the intervenors wish to pursue such issues. Catawba, supra, slip opinion at 37-39. Petitioners Eddleman, CHANGE /ELP and CCNC must consider, for instance, whether they want to retain counsel, and all of the petitioners must decide whether they wish to employ a security plan expert.
The Petitioners must also consider whether they are willing to accept the restrictions on access to the plan that would be contained in a protective order.
If any of the petitioners demonstrates an intention to pursue security plan issues, it will be appropriate at that time for Applicants and the NRC Staff to respond to the specific proposed contentions and for the Board to rule on them. Applicants therefore request that the Board permit them to defer responding to the security plan contentions proposed by Petitioners until such time as the Board may specify. Any contention which meets the threshold level of minimal spec-ificity discussed above and is not otherwise inadmissible should be admitted conditionally pending intervenor expert witness review of the security plan. Subsequent to such review, the intervenor should then be required to restate the contention with the degree of specificity ordinarily required and must provide an adequate basis to support it.
H. Management Capability (Contentions 4-7)
Proposed Contention 4 fails to meet the basis requirement of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) and therefore should be rejected by the Board. Contention 4 states that since only one of the super-visory personnel on the Shearon Harris site "has PWR (electric) construction and operating experience," CP&L therefore " lacks the management capability to safely construct and operate Harris Units 1 and 2." Petition at 4. No rationale is provided as a basis for this conclusion, which is inconsistent with both American Nuclear Society standards and the NRC regulatory guide on personnel qualifications and training.
See, e.g., ANSI /ANS 3.1 and Regulatcry Guide 1.8. These criteria specify the number of years of experience required for nuclear power plant personnel, and how that experience can be amassed, e.g., in the Navy nuclear power program. Furthermore, insofar as Kudzu seeks to relitigate the adequacy of management capability to construct SHNPP, e.g., to " adequately oversee and supervise all phases of construction occurring at the Harris i
site," Petition at 4, no basis whatsoever is provided to
^
l i challenge the Licensing Board's conclusion that Applicants have "the management capability and technical qualifications to design and construct the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant."
Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4), LBP-79-19, 10 N.R.C. 37, 95 (1979).
Proposed Contention 5 charges that Applicants will be unable to properly manage SHNPP because alleged problems in managing and staffing the Brunswick plant during repairs and outages, as set forth in the so-called Jacobstein Report, establish Applicants' lack of management capability to properly staff and operate Shearon Harris. Petition at 4-5. Applicants object to Contention 5 for the reasons stated in Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Contention 3(d).
Applicants also object to the admission of proposed Contention 6, which challenges CP&L's ability to safely construct and operate SHNPP on the basis of a section of the so-called Jacobstein Report, the report on which Kudzu's proposed Contention 5 is based. Petition at 6. Insofar as l proposed Contention 6 challenges Applicants' management capability to construct the Shearon Harris facility, Applicants t
believe this issue is beyond the scope of this operating license proceeding except where an intervenor alleges that certain specified aspects of construction prevent safe opera-tion of the facility. Kudzu has not done so here.
Furthermore, Applicants believe that Contention 6 -as it applies 1
to operation of SHNPP is identical in substance to proposed Contention 5, at to which Applicants object. See Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Contention 3(d).
Proposed Contention 7 asserts that CP&L has insufficient and inadequate staff to safely operate Shearon Harris along
.. s with the other nuclear plants it has to service. Petition at
- 6. The basis provided for this contention is the absence of specific information, on the individuals who staff the positions provided in Applicants' organizational charts, presumably in the FSAR. Contrary to Kudzu's assertion, the FSAR includes resumes of numerous individuals, including both key engineering support personnel involved in SHNPP, and plant personnel. See FSAR SS 13.1.3 and 13.1.3.2, including Table 13.1.1-1. Lacking a sufficient basis, proposed Contention 7 should be rejected.
I. Municipal Power Agency (Contention ll)
In proposed Contention 11, the Kudzu Alliance would introduce into this proceeding the issue of the financial l qualification of " consortiums of municipal power authorities and rural electrical cooperatives" to operate the Harris plant.
l In additio:., this contention arguably seeks to raise the issue of the ability of such so-called " consortiums" to finance the costs of cleanup and any liability which might attach after a l TMI-2 type accident. Petition at 8-9.
The only such entity which has an interest in' the Harris l
plant is Applicant Power Agency. The contention is without basis, therefore, as to any other group of municipalities or rural electrical cooperatives.
With respect to Applicant Power Agency, this issue is l
inadmissible as a challenge to the Commission's final rule on
financial qualifications. See 47 Red. Reg. 13750 (1982) and Applicants' Response to Eddleman at Contentions 58, 66 and 94 (which is incorporated herein by reference).
In addition, Applicants wish to point out that the Kudzu Alliance has sought to base its contention upon the experience of Washington Public Power Supply System. The Commission explicitly rejected such an argument in responding to comments offered concerning the proposed rule on financial quali-fications. The Commission stated that
[C]iting WPPSS' experience is not convinc-ing, because WPPSS' response (and that of most other utilities encountering financial difficulties) has been to postpone or cancel their plants, actions clearly not inimical to public health and safety under the Atomic Energy Act.
47 Fed. Reg. at 13751.
With respect to the financial ability of Applicant Power Agency to bear the costs of any liability arising out of an accident, the proposed contention is lacking in basis and should not be admitted. As Applicants discuss more fully in response to CCNC proposed Contention 1, Applicant CP&L has contractually committed to Pcwer Agency to carry, in the names of the owners of the Harris Plant, as much nuclear liability insurance as is required pursuant to S 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. S 2011 et seg. Thc rela-tively insubstantial cost of premiums and deferred premiums are costs of operation to be shared by Applicants in proportion to
their ownership interests in the Harris Plant. Power Agency's financial qualifications to bear its share of operating costs is not a cognizable issue in this proceeding by virtue of the Commission's final rule on financial qualification. To the extent, therefore, that this proposed contention would raise such an issue, it is an impermissible challenge to the final rule and should not be admitted. Applicants' response to CCNC proposed Contention 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
For these reasons, therefore, this proposed contention should not be admitted.
III. CONCLUSION In their March 12, 1982, response to the Kudzu Alliance petition for leave to intervene, Applicants recognized that Kudzu had sufficiently stated an interest in the proceeding to meet the initial requirements for intervention under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714. In this response to Kudzu's supplemental petition, Applicants have not found a single proposed contention which currently meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714. In the case of three Kudzu contentions, however -- Contentions 2, 3 and 13 -- Applicants have agreed that due to the present absence of adequate information, Kudzu may file new contentions on the matters (in part) addressed oy Contentions 2, 3 and 13 j upon the availabilir.y of specified documents. In the case of Kudzu Contention 12 (security plan), Applicants have 1
O
?
o- o recommended deferral of the Board's ruling until certain additional information is acquired. Recognizing these oppor-tunities for Kudzu yet to proffer an admissible contention and the fact that a hearing will be held because of the granting of other petitions, Applicants propose deferring a final ruling on Kudzu's petition and providing Kudzu with temporary party status.
Respectfully submitted,
/O k.0e George F. Trowbridge, P.C.
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
John H. O'Neill, Jr.
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-7707 Counsel for Applicants Dated: June 15, 1982 l
1 -
--