ML20236T909

NRC Staff Response to Citizens Regulatory Commission (CRC) Contentions (Rss).* CRC Has Not Submitted at Least One Valid Contention to Meet Requirements of 10CFR2.174 & Should Not Intervene in This Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20236T909
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	07/27/1998
From:	Bachmann R NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#398-19358 LA, NUDOCS 9807290151
Download: ML20236T909 (8)

Text

- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

9368 DOCKET ~;.D

' USHR(uly 27,1998 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION % Jll 28 A10 39 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD W J-Y HULL W h ADJUDiC# + JTAFF Me Me of )

)

NORTHEASTNUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY ) DocketNo. 50-423-LA

)

(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, )

UnitNo. 3) )

NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO CITIZENS REGULATORY COMMISSION'S CONTENTIONS (RSS)

INTRODUCTION In accordance with the June 15,1998 Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board), the staffof the Nudear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby responds to the July 6,1998 Supplement to its petition to intervene filed by the Citizens Regulatory Commission (CRC). For the reasons set forth below, the Staff submits that CRC has not submitted at least one contention that satisfies the requirements 4 of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b)(2). Accordingly, its petition for leave to intervene should be denied.

BACKGROUND On April 23,1998, CRC filed its " Citizens Regulatory Commission Petition for Leave to 1

Intervene" with the Commission. The Petition was in r-p to a proposed license amendment l concerning the recirculation spray system. On April 29,1998, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Boani) was established to preside over the prMing. By Memorandum and Order dated i May 7,1998, the Board directed ApplicantNortheast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) and the l

(

9907290151 990727 . /

DR ADOCK 050004232 A

, g l PDR a }SO'  ;

i

e

' Staff to file answers to CRC's Petition. NNECO filed its answer on May 22,1998;8 the Stafffiled its responseon May 27,1998.2 By Order dated June 15,1998, the Board permitted CRC to amend I its Petition to addret.s any shortcomings with respect to e=ading and other matters, and directed CRC to file a supplementto its Petition ce= irtrig its proffered contentions. Both actions wem to be completed by July 6,1998. The Board further provided that NNECO's and the Staffs responses )

to CRC's amendment addressing its standing would be due on July 20,1998s. Id Responses to CRC's supplementproffering contentionswould be due on July 27,1998. Id. On July 6,1998, CRC filed its Supplement, consisting of two proposed contentions and the affidavits of Clarence O.

Reynolds and Joseph H. Besade (unsigned), which addressed r=adiag d As discussed below, CRC has not satisfied the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714 with respect to at least one contention, and thus should not be pennitted to intervene in this praa** ding. l DISCUSSION A. Legal Requirements for Cnntentinns

/ \

The Commission's Rules of Practice at 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714 set forth the requirements i

for the admission of contentions. In additionto demonstratingthe required interest, a petitionermust submit at least one valid contentionthat meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714 in order to be 2

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company's Answer to Request for a Hearing and Petition to Intervene.

2 NRC Staffs Response to Citizens Regulatory Commission's Petition to Intervene.

2 By Motion dated July 15,1998, the Staff requested an additional week, to July 27, i 1998, to respond to the standing issue. The Board granted the Motion on July 16,1998.

d The issue of standing has been separately addressed by the Staff in its NRC Staffs Response to C.RC Supplement to Intervention Petition (RSS) filed July 27,1998.

L_i_ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ ___ _ _____-.______-_ _

v . .

permitted to panicipate in a licensing pic-:='kg as a party. 10 C.F.R. { 2.714(bX1); Yankee Atomic Electric Company (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-96-7,43 NRC 235,248 (1996); Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLI-95-12, 42 NRC 111,117 (1995).

For a contention to be admitted, it must meet the standards set forth in 10 C.F.R.

- { 2.714(bX2), which provide that "[ejach contention must consist of"

• "a specific statement of the issue oflaw or fact to be raised or controverted",

accompanied by (I) a "brief explanation of the bases of the contention";

(ii) a " concise statement of the alleged facts or expert ophiion"supponirs the contention together with references to " specific sources and documents ... on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion"; and j (iii) "[s]ufficientinformation ... to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact," which showing must include

" references to the specific portions of the application . . . that the petitioner disputes and the supponing reasons for each disputc. . . . "

10 C.F.R. { 2.714(bX2).

Tne failure of a contention to comply with any one of these requirementsis grounds for dismissing  ;

the contention.10 C.F.R. { 2.714(dX2XI); Arizona Public Service Company (Palo Verde Nuclear Generadng Station, Units 1,2, and 3), CLI-91-12,34 NRC 149,155-56 (1991); seguoyah Fuels Corporation and General Atomics, LBP-94-8. 39 NRC 1 16,117-18, afd on other grounds,  ;

CLI-94-12,40 NRC 64 (1994).

As summarized by the Conunission in Yankee Nuclear, supra:  ;

i For a contention to be admissiMe, a petitioner must refer to the specific portion of the license application being challenged, state the issue of fet er law associated with that portion, and provide a " basis"

i s 4-  ;

of alleged facts or expert opinions, together with references to specific sources and documents that establish those facts or expert l opinions. The basis must be sufficient to show that a genuine dispute j exists on a material issue of fact or law. l i

43 NRC at 248-49. l Second, licensing boards "are delegates ofthe Commission"and, as such, they may " exercise only those powers which the Commission has given to [them]." Public Service Co. (Mecble Hill i

i Nuclear Generating Stafien, Units l and 2), ALAB-316. 31 MC 167,170-71 (1976); accordPortland General Electric Company (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-534,9 NRC 287,289-90 n.6 (1979).

l Accordingly,it is well established under Commission precedent that a contention is not cognizable l unless it is material to a matter that falls within the scope of the pdg for which the licensing board has been delegated jurisdiction as set forth in the Commission's Notice of Opportunity for Hearing. Id.; see also Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-616, I

12 NRC 419,426-27 (1980); Commonwealth Edison Company (Carroll County Site), ALAB-601, 12 NRC 18,24 (1980). The Notice of, Opportunity for Hearing in this case delineates the scope of l the present licensing proceeding as follows:

The proposed revision to the Millstone Unit 3 licensing basis would eliminate the requirement to have the recirculation spray system directly inject into the reactor coolant system following a design basis accident.

63 Fed. Reg 14487 (March 25,1998).

B. CRC's Contentions Do Not htidv the Reanirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714.

CRC's contentions read as follows:

l 1. The license amendruent assumes a certain proportion of the recirculation , spray system (RSS) coolant will supply the containment spray ring during ine LOCA design basis accident; however, since the systems have not been tested, it has not been determined that they will be functional, that is, the flow will be divided as L

L_-_______-_____________-_-________-____.________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ --___ _____ _. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .1

o u postulated. ,

Supplement at 1.

. II. Reduction by halfin the RSS flow results in a mayor change in capacity which requires actual testing.

Supplement at 4.

Both of CRC's contentions concern the spray function of the RSS. This function is unaffected by the design change related to the other function of the RSS, that of providing water to the reactor coolant system in the eveat of a design basis (loss of coolant) accident. Moreover, the proposed amendment, contrary to CRC's assertiors, does not involve any equipment modification.

The amendment would permit NNECO to revise its safety analysis report to include the analysis supporting the elir:unation of the RSS direct injection path ofcooling water in the event of a loss of coolant accMent (LOCA).8 CRC's contentions are completely beyond the scope of the license amen 6nent and should be rejected.

In addition, CRC's " bases" for its contentions are totally inadequate. Even if the contentious were within the scope of the amendment, the bases simply state that computer analyses were performed but no actual testing was done. CRC does not challer.ge the adequacy or accuracy of the analyses;in fact,it is not clear to which analyses CRC is referring. There are no expert opinions or referencesto specific sources or documents to support CRC's assertion that actual testing is required.

s The RSS would continue to provide cooling water to the . reactor coolant system in the event of a LOCA via de charging and safety injection pumps.

)

o_ -_- - - - - - - - _ - - _ - - - - - - - _ - - _ - - - - - _ - - - - - - _ - J

0 I

e -6 CONCLUSION CRC has not submitted at least one valid contention that meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R.

{ 2.714 and therefore should not be permitted to intervene in this s c-:=Srg.

Respectfully submitted, M

2 Richard G. Bachmann Counsel forNRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 27th day ofJuly 1998 i

i I

l

1. _ . _ _ _ ____.__.__.__.__ ___.____.__ _.________ _.____ _ _ _ _ _- _

e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINGRAIE2R A10 :39 In the Matter of ) OFFICi < ~a

) RULf1 J NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY ) Docket N@M23-LA: ; 'f5FF

)

(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit No. 3) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO CITIZENS REGULATORY COMMISSION'S CONTENTIONS (RSS)"in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, or by deposit in the United States mail, first class, as indicated by an asterisk this 27th day of July,1998:

Thomas S. Moore, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington,DC 20555 Dr. Charles N. Kelber Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissiore: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Adjudicatory File (2) Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq.* Nancy Burton, Esq.*

Northeast Utilities Service Company 147 Cross Highway P.O. Box 270 Redding Ridge, CT 06876 Hartford, CT 06141

(

l l

a e Office ofCommission Appellate David A. Repka,Esq.*

Adjudication Winston & Strawn )

j Mail Stop O-16G15 1400 L Street,N.W.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20005 1 Washington,DC 20555 l l

1 i

RichaId G. Bachmann Counsel forNRC Staff i l

l 1

l I .

I