ML20073T102

Response to NRC Answer to State of La Contentions 1-6. Reasonable Specificity Requirements of 10CFR2.714(b) Satisfied.Contentions 2 & 5 Premature & Should Be Accepted Conditionally.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20073T102
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	05/03/1983
From:	Lindsay I LOUISIANA, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8305100328
Download: ML20073T102 (11)

Text

_ __

s e

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g TC' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N B ARD C BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEN In the Matter of 3 /p I Gulf States Utilities Co., Doc of[tSO b9'/f et al. '50-(River Bend Station, Units 1 & 2) May 3, 1.

I

RESPONSE TO STAFF'S AND APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA I. INTRODUCTION Responding to the Licensing Board's Order of December 21, 1982, the State of Louisiana on March 15, 1983 filed a

" Supplemental' Petition" setting forth proposed contentions in this proceeding. The NRC Staff and Applicants have answered and the State of Louisiana now responds.

II. DISCUSSION

+

A. Rules Governing Admissibility of Contentions

1. In General 10 CFR 2. 714 (b) states in part that, prior to the special pre-hearing conference, petitioners must file

" Contentions which petitioners seek to have litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity."

According to a Licensing Board decision in the Perry proceeding,1 " Reasonable specificity"", . . requirefs] that I Cleveland Electric _ Illuminating Company,et a1. (Perry _

Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 & 2), LBP- 81-24, 14 NRC 175 (J u l y

28, 1981).

i 0305100328 830503

! PDR ADOCK 05000458 ,

y

[

G PDR

intervenor show enough understanding of the filed materials to indicate that a hearing will have a substantial chance of adding to the preexisting- . process. Hence, it is reasonable to require that-contentions.show an understanding of the materials already filed by Applicant about its reactor."2 The Licensing Board in that p r o c e e d i'n g a l s o stated that "The degree of specificity required of a contention depends in part on the nature of the challenge to its admissibility."3 Additional guidance is found in the recent Maine Yankee proceeding.4 There, the Licensing Board stated:

"It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to (1) set forth contentions which are sufficiently detailed and specific to demonstrate that the issues are admissible and that further inquiry is warranted, and to put the other parties on notice as to what they will have to defend against or oppose and (2) set forth the reasons (ba s i s ) for each of the contentions without having to detail the evidence which would later be offered in support of each contention."5 2

Id., p. 182.

l 3 g., p. 183.

4 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (Ma ine Yankee

! Atomic Power Station), LBP-82-4, 15~ NRC 199 (January 22,

, 1982).

5

., p. 206.

i i

1

- . . . . _ __-...m_ . . . . .-- - _- . . - - - , - - - . . . _ . _ - . _ . - _ - _ - - - - _ . - _

It is respectfully . submitted that the State of

! L'ouisiana has in its " Supplemental Petition" shown an understanding-of the materials filed b'y the Applicants, has

-demonstrated that the~ issues raised by its contentions are admissible, has put the other parties on notice, and that Louisiana is not required to detail evidence in support of its

contentions.

2. Prematurity Applicants and Staff oppose the admission of certain contentions (specifically Nos. 2 and 5) on the ground that they are premature. The State of Louisiana need not, I trust, go i

into detail on the obvious " Catch 22" in trying to frame specific questions when certain documents necessary to do so have not yet been written. On this matter, Louisiana urges that this Honorable Board read the recent Catawba 6 decision for an excellent discussion of this issue, which is highly relevant in the instant case. Although to quote extensively from this decision would serve no useful purpose, Louisiana nevertheless believes a few quotes are appropriate here to the general objection of prematurity:

"The specificity requirement is a perfectly reasonable one, so long as the factual 6

Duke Power Company, -et al., (Catawba Nuclear

'StationsUnits 1 and 2), LBP-62-T6, ~ IS NRC 5 6 6 (M a rch 5, 1982).

l

information necessary for specificity is available to an intervenor. .Unfortunately, because' of the- way the hearing process is structured that is often not the case, particularly in the early stages of the proceeding.

"That is the- situation here. Of the key documents just mentioned, only the Applicants' FSAR (most of it) and Env.ironmental Report are now available for. public inspection. The

. Staf f's SER .and impact statement, most of the of-site emergency plans and portions of the FSAR have not yet been written.

"The Applicants and the Staff nevertheless argue that the Intervenors should be required to plead all of-their contentions with reasonabl~e specificity by the first prehearing cor ference, even_ contentions in areas like emergency planning, where the documents necessary for informed pleading are not yet available.

"The Board believes that-the Applicants' and Staff's stated position on this question is (1) not required by the rules as written or by prior decisions, (2) unreasonable, and (3) probably in conflict with governing statutes.

"Indeed, we think that the Applicants' and Staf f's position on the specificity question is, as they would have us apply _it here, of very questionable legality . . . .

7

., pp. 570-573.

s i

4

- . _ _ _ ~ . . , , _ _ . , . _ , _ . . - . _ _ . _ , - . . , . _ . _ _ _ , . . , - . . . . --,,-__.n.. _ , . , _ . _ . _.m.m._,- _ _ _ _ ,.. . - . . , . , . , - - - .

B. Contentions of the State of Louisiana

1. Contention 1 - Table S-3 As this Honorable Licensing Board knows Louisiana is well aware of the events surrounding the litigation of the Table S-3 Rule, as reflected in the NRDC case,8 and of the Commission's Statement of Policy of November 1, 1982. The State is also aware that the Supreme Court has already heard oral agrument in the matter, and anxiously awaits, as do thousands of others, the announcement of the decision. The opinion of the Court in this matter will no doubt influence the State of Louisiana to either abandon or expand this contention.

2. Contention 2_ - Emergency Planning Louisiana suggests that its contention has been " set forth with reasonable specificity" considering the lack of available information on emergeny planning. Here, both the Applicants and the Staff urge that this contention is premature.

In response, Louisiana respectfully urges this Board to consider the reasoning of the Licensing Board in the Catawba proceeding, supra, as outlined in Section II, A., 2., above, at page 3, note 6.

3. Contention 3 - Drinking Water Supplies i Both the Applicants and the Staff state that Louisiana l

l has failed to specify any inadequacies in the FSAR with respect l

O NRDC v. NRC, 685 F.2d 459 (D.C. Cir. 1982),

cert. granted, Si U.S.L.W. 3419 (November 29, 1982).

i to discharg(_ as demonstrated in Section 2.4.12 and 2.4.13 of I' the FSAR. Louisiana respectfully shows, with respect to accidental discharges into surface water supplies, in particular the Mississippi River, "the postulated _ extreme minimum flow of 100,000 cfs" which was assumed in the FSAR Section 2.4.12 and elsewhere in the FSAR is in error if the Old River Control

~

Structure should fail, as will be described more particularly in

~

Subsection 4,-below.

Louisiana also specifically takes issue with t

{ Applicants' plans "Not . . . to monitor the chemical and i

radionuclide content of the groundwater because the potential e

for affecting local water use is small" (FSAR Section 2.4.13.4

" Monitoring") and respectf ully suggests the necessity for groundwater monitoring, especially when one balances the

relatively low cost of monitoring as balanced against the l

potential costs of human consumption of potentially radio-l active, unmonitored water.

i

4. Contention 4_ - Old River Control Structure With respect to Contention 4, and a possible failure of the Old River Control Structure, Staff states in its " Answer" f,

! on page 7 that "The applicant has analyzed this potential event 1

and reported that analysis in Section 2.4.11.1 of the FS AR."  ;

l With all due respect to the Staff, nowhere in Section 2.4.11.1 1

is there any " analysis" o f the failure of the Old River Control Structure on the safe operation of River Bend Station.

Not only is such failure not mentioned in Section 2.4.11.1, it l

2 ,

..,,,--_n-,--,--..,..,.,,-, ,,,,-,.,.,n.,

- . , , . . . - . , . , . . , , . . . , - - , - - . . , , - _ - , , . . . . - , , ,,,.-,.,--____n--- ,.

is further omitted in Section 2.4.4.1, " Potential Dam Failures

- Mississippi Rive r." Countering the possible suggestion that the " control structure" is not a " dam" and thus need not be analyzed in that section, the State of Louisiana points out that the following section on " Local Streams", Section 2.4.1.

2 ,' refers to " dams or similar watercontrol s t r uc t u re s."

Similarly, " Stream Control Structures" are specifically add re ssed in Sec tion 2.4.1.2.2, " Local Streams," but are not addressed in the previous section, 2. 4.1. 2.1, " M i s s i s s i pp i River."

Further, Louisiana shows that throughout its analysis of low flow levels in the Mississippi River as they would affect the safe operation of River Bend Station, the Applicants have assumed that "the probable minimum flow rate . . . is not anticipated to be less than 100,000 cfs" (FSAR Section 2.4.11.1 et al.) The State of Louisiana is prepared to show that a failure of the Old River Control Structure will in all liklihood reduce the volume of water substantially below 100,000 cfs in a normal year, and respectfully reminds the Staff and Applicants that Section 2.714 (b) does not require petitioners to detail the evidence which it intends to offer in support of its contention.

Applicants themselves concede the importance of the Old River Control Structure in their " Answer" on page 10 where they state: "The structure has such a significant effect on all downstream users, including the cities of Baton Rouge and New

= ,

Orleans, that the effects of the River Bend Station of its failure would be d_e, m i n i m i s by comparison." Applicants appear  ;

j- -to be sayin'g that just because the effects would be worse elsewhere, they therefore do not have to worry about the effects at River Bend. With.all due respect to Applicants, Louisiana

, suggests that this Honorable Licensing Board is not required to considerthe effects- of the failure of the structure elsewhere, no matter how catastrophic they may be, but would be well-J 1 advised to to consider such failure with reference to River Bend I

I Station.

5. Contention 5 - Unit 1/ Unit 2 Both the Applicants and the Staff state that a contention based on the effect of construction of Unit 2 on the

! operation of Unit 1 is premature. The State of Louisiana 4

respectfully reurges the discussion of prematurity as set out in I

the' decision in the Catawba proceeding, above, at page 3, note 1

6.

!~

j i 6. Contention 6 - Infestation of Asiatic Clams

. The State of Louisiana notes with approval that the i Staff does not object to the admission of this contention.

Louisiana further notes that Applicants feel that

}.

i "this contention is completely lacking in specificity and bases

(" Answ e r", p. 4 3) . Louisiana respectfully believes that i

s

1

its contention is specific and that it has a basis and further directs this Honorable Board's attention to EROLS page Q& R 3.4-1 (Supplement 2):

" Question E291. 5 (3.4)

Indicate whether thermal and/or chemical treatments will be used in the backwash treatment of the intake

. structure.

Response

No design provision is included for thermal and/or chemical treatments in the backwash of the intake structure."

III. Conclusion The State of Louisiana feels that it has satisfied the

" reasonable specificity" requirements of 10 CFR 2. 714 (b) and urges .that this Honorable Board accept its contention as filed and further urges this Board, should they find that contention 2 and 5 are premature, to accept them conditionally.

Respectfully submitted, j STATE OF LOUISIANA l

WILLIAM J. GUSTE, JR.

Attor ey G eral g

/

By: _

KAN D GLAS IND i Assistant ttorney Gene 1 Department of Justice i Lands and Natural Resources Division 7434 Perkins Road t- Suite C Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808

(504) 766-8610

_9_

i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION In the Matter of Gulf States Utilities Co.,

• Docket Nos. 50-459

• 50-459

~

et al.

(River Bend Station, Units 1 & 2)

• CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " RESPONSE TO STAFF'S AND APPLICANTS' ANSWERS TO PROPOSED CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States nail, first class, this 3 day of May, 1983.

Dr. Richard F. Cole Tony B. Conner, Jr.

Administrative Judge Mark J. Wetterhahn Atomic Safety and Licensing Conner & Wetterhahn Board Panel 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory N.W.

Commission Suite 1050 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20006 Mr. B. Paul Cotter, Jr. Mr. James E. Booker Administrative Judge Gulf States Utilities Co.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Post Office Box 2951 Board Panel Beaumont, Texas 77701

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Ms. Doris Falkenheiner Administrative Judge Louisiana Consumers' Atomic Safety and Licensing League Board Panel 355 Napoleon Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Commission Wachington, D.C. 20555

Gretchen R.Rothschild AtomicSafety and Louisianians for Safe Energy Licensing Board Panel 7

l Inc. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1659 Glenmore Avenae Commission Baton Rouge,- Louisiana 70808 Washington, D.C. 2055 James W. Pierce, Jr., Esq. Ms. Anne Plettinger Post Office Box 23571 712 Carol Marie Drive Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70893 Baton Rouge, LA 70806 Docketing and Service Mr. David Repka, Esq.

Section Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Secretary Office of Executive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Legal Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mrs. Linda B. Watkins Appeal Board Attorney at Law 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 355 Napoleon Street Commission Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Washington, D.C. 20555 i -

e

'/

4 ,

~

JpN DO GLAS IN EY t

I f

4 i

)

A 4

i

- -,-. . . . . _ - - . , . _ , . . __..,..,_._..-._-.c. .-..-_,,_,------_.__...,,,.-....m,--,--,. -

_ - - - , , - - . . - , . . , - . , - - ~