ML040510284

Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene

ML040510284
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	08/25/2003
From:	Curran D Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP
To:	NRC/SECY/RAS
Julian E
References
50-413-OLA, 50-414-OLA, ASLBP 03-815-03-OLA, RAS 7379
Download: ML040510284 (11)

Text

August 25,2003 UNITED STATES OF AMEFUCA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC BEFORE THE SECRETARY August 25,2003 (1 1:OOAM)

OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND In the Matter of ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Docket Nos. 50-36950-370, D U G ENERGY CORPORATION 50-413,and 50-414 (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Catslwba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) I BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUES HEARING REQUEST AND PETITION TO m E R V E N E Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.$2.714 and a notice published bythe Nuclear Regulatory Conkission (,N or Commission) at 68 Fed. Reg. 44,107 (July 25,2003), Blue I

Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL)hereby requests a hearing and petitions to intervene in the above-captioned license amendmerir proceeding for the proposed use of mixed oxide (MOX) Lead Test Assemblies (:LTAs) at either the Catawba or McGuire nuclear power plant.

Standing As required by the NRCs Federal Register notice for this proceeding, a hearing request must demonstrate 1) the requesters right to be made a party to the proceeding, 2) its interest in the proceeding, and 3) possible effects on the petitioners interest. 68 Fed.

I Reg. at 44,107. BREDL has c? right to a hearing, as an interested member of the public, under Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act. BREDLs interest in the proceeding is to ensure that any license amendment issued to Duke Power Company (Duke) for the 9

proposed LTA tests complies with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (EPA). The proceedkg could have an adverse I

effect on BREDLs interest, if a license mendment is issued without compliance with these statutes.

BREDL also satisfies the stcandingrequiremer.ts established in 1\IRC case law. As summarized by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB)in a recent decision, these standing ruquirerneiits are as follows:

In determining whether a petitioner has sufficient intereSt to intervene in a proceeding, the Commission has traditionally applied judicial concepts of standing. See Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear station, Unit l), CLI-83-25,18 NRC 327,332 (1983) (citing Portkmd General Electric Co.

(Pebble Sporings Nuclear Plmt, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27,4 NRC 610 (1976)).

Contemporaneous judicial standards for standing require a petitioner to demonstrate that (1) it has suffered or Will sufer a distinct and palpable h c mthat constitutes injury-in-fact within the zone of interests arguably protected by the governing statutes (e.g., the Atomic Energy Act o 1954(AEA),the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)); (2) the injury can be fairly traced to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. See Carolina Power & Light Co.(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plants), LBP-99-25, 50 NRC 25,29 (1999). An organization that wishes to intervene in a proceeding may do so either in its own right by demonstrating harm to its organizational interests, or in a representational capacity by demonstrating harm to its members. See Hydro Resources, Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), LBP-98-9,47 NRC 261,271 (1998). To intervene in a representational capacity, an organization must show not only that at least one of its members would fillfill the standing requirements, but also that he or she has authorized the organization to represent his or her interests. See Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Fuel Storage hstallation), L.BP-98-7,47 NRC 142, 168,a f c i on other grounds, CLI-98-13,48 NRC 26 (1998).

Pacific Gas & Elechc CQ.@iablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-02-23, 56 NRC 413,426 (2002)(herein&er Diablo Ccmyon),

BREDL meets the above-cited test for standing to participate in this proceeding.

BREDL is a nonprofit membership organization whose purposes include the fostering of earth stewardship and conservation of natural resources by the government and the public. As demonstrated in the Declaration of Gregg Jocoy (August 19,2003)

(hereinafter Jocoy Declaration), attached hereto as Exhibit 1, BREDL has

representational standing to participate in this proceeding on behalf of its members. Mr.

Jocoy is a member of BREDL who authorizes BREDL to represent him in this proceeding. See Jocoy Declaration, pars. 3 and 7. M i . Jocoy lives less than 20 miles fiom the Catawba and McGuiire plants, and therefore is within the 50-mile radius "zone of possible harm" that has been held to confer presumptive standing in nuclear power plant licensing cases. Diablo Canyon, supra, 56 NRC at 427. As demonstrated in paragraph 6 of Mr. Jocoy's declaration, the potential harm to Mr, Jocoy's health and property posed by the proposed license amendment consists, in part, of the exacerbation of radiological impacts if an accident should occur at the Catawba or McGuire nuclear power plant. See ERI/NRC 02-202, "Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants: High-Bumup and Mixed Oxide Fuels (November 2002). (A copy of the relevant pages of this report is attached as Exhibit 2.) 1 Mr. Jocoy's health and property could also be injured if MOX fuel were stolen from the Catawba or McGuire plant, and intentionally or unintentionally released to the environment. As discussed in paragraph 5 of Mr. Jocoy's declaration, plutonium is an attractive target for terrorists. Therefore it is reasonable to expect that Duke would upgrade its security plans to provide adequate sectuity measures for reactor fuel that contains plutonium. Nevertheless, Duke states in its Febnmy 27,2003, license amendment application that it has not submitted proposed revisions to the Catawba and McGuire security plans as part ofthis license amendment proceeding. Duke says that it intends to submit these revisions "separately," i.e. outside this license amendment proceeding. That could mean that the new security measures are not reviewed in connection with this license application, or implemented in a timely way. As Mr. Jocoy 3

I explains, the lack of upgraded security measures in Dukes license amendment application concerns him,because MOX Fuel that is illegally transported offsite could be accidentally or intentionally released to the environment, thus posing a health risk to him and a contamination risk to his property.

The potential radiation-induced injuries to Mr. Jocoys health and property interests that are described in his declaration are fairly traceabi6co the proposed action, and also fall within the zone of interest protected by the Atomic Energy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (EPA). Moreover, these injuries would be redressed by a decision denying the requested license amendment. Therefore, Mr. Jocoy has demonstrated his own st<andingto participate in this case. Because he has authorized BREDL to represent his interests in the proceeding, Nfr. Jocoy has also conferred representational standing on BREDL.

Specific Aspects of the Subject Matter As To Which BREDL Seeks to Intervene As required by the Federal Register notice, BREDL sets forth below the specific aspects of the subject matter of this proceeding as to which BREDL wishes to intervene:

1. Whether M e s failure to submit security plan revisions for the proposed license amendment violates the Atonic Energy Act and l\iRCs implementing safety regulations;

2. Whether the use oFMOX fiiel at the Catawba and McGuire would unacceptably elevate the risk posed by containment sump failure, in violation of the Atomic Energy Act, NRC safety regulations, and NEPA;

3. Whether Dukes safety analysis or the proposed license amendment request is adequate to satisfy NRC safety regidations; 4

4. Whether Duke has understated the environmental impacts of the proposed license amendment, in violation of NEPA;

5. Whether Duke has adequately identified reasonable alternatives to the proposed license amendment, and other measures to avoid or mitigate the environmental impacts of the proposed license amendment.

Resp ectfidl y submitted, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, L.L.P.

1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 20213 2 8-3 500 e-mail: dcurran@hmnoncu.com August 25,2003 5

Exhibit 1 In the Matter Of DUKE coRPoRATl*N (McGuhe Nudear Sratian, Units 1 and 2, Catawha Pocket No's. 50$69,50-370, 50-313, and 50-414 I

LNuGbarStation, Units 1 and 2) D

. .I

_ i, I [w'.,

Exhibit 2 ER~~NRC 02-202

. b ACCIDENT SOUKCE TlkRMS FQk .CIBHT-WATER NUCLE4R POWER PLANTS: '.

HIGH BURNUP A ~ MIXED"OXIDE D FUELS

. . . ,. ... . . . , I

. '1 I

. + .

' ' 1 . ,. > , . I ,

I 4

., : .*. 8 Draft Repbrt: Jtirie 2002 I FlnaI. Repprt: November 2002 S I I I

1 1

1 L

I L -

L i

L 1

I I

i

4. The changes in the recommdcd relcases for the late IB-vesaeI a d the ex-vesjel phases fallow the obsenrations nofed carfier far P a s , where genedly, no s i p i h n t bumup dependma was identified. The most notable changes are due f~

hisher potential for revapod3litiag o f the halogens, rhq tellurium and the noble metal groups, whlch are ds9 expected to be applicable to lower b m u p lavuls. As for PWRS, tho variiltjons in the panel recommendad releases fur the low volatile nuclides a8 compared to NUREG1465 reflect tha general uneertainHes assoai&tcd with the releaso of these nuclides dutlng wrecancrete interactions, and BIB not indicative of expectations for any significant burnup dependsnoe.

42 MOXFueb . -

An approach has been pmpased to caf~ulatethe sourc~t e r n towntsinment for an entire core contkhg mixed oxide a d low d G h e d urahhm Fuel askmblies (sea Section 3.4 for details). Thfs approach apportions (ha releases into the containmans based on the fiaation of the corn that cantrjlrs MOX (and UU)@el. The release parameters fix the LEU part of the core are to be taken 6om Tables 3,I or 3.1 1, depending on the reactor type; while, the release Gnctiuns fof ths MOX addedbli& can follaw the panel source tenn recommendatbna listed inTab18'3.12. )i 4 .. I #

Table 3.12 shows tbe range of panel r~Orp.mendadOii&rthc v@~usrelease parameters, reflecting the uncertainties due to ,l@i of &I 'adequata database to chmcbrize radatogicalreleases far MOX A;leh. 'I

' 16. a?,i. t 4

I  !'"-' 8 L .

v, *,._-

~n general, ae dwdoa af mleasi fG*th+primiijixaies ue 2ssentiaily ]dentid tp the LEU hela, with the genural e%p'&btfdn"lhhtthe'bpiklease would OGGW o w a shorter time periad, based on the obm-vatiors &om tho VERCORS RT2 and Halden test data Table 3.12 shows rhat some panel mabars concIudad that there was insuffioient information upon which to bass an inl*mie'd ophib;'&.th&efore,thue panel members did not provide specific recammenda9ioqF;foF the re&*e ti.aCtiOns fix other than the more volatile radionuclides. The panel meid'bers,yotedthd mwt of the noble p e s , hdogms, allnli metals md telIurium goup are reldasad fTom a MOX fuei: Thus, k WBS possible to make judpeatd HS to the phase in whlch Ihey Waie released. For the remaining radionuclide groups, only ftactional f&a~H '&id the daWasa ww deemed insufficient tu suppart a spe&lit reloaie fraction.

. I ,

Ia gened, the pane[ caneluded that' 'releu$ %ictldn$'ara similar or slightly higher t ,

tha~thoso for LEU fuels.

• I -

. h .

The degree of varfability in the typommund4 releaso p ~ ~ n ~ for t s noble r ~ gases, halogens, and alkali metals are not f#.;$i@rent :Eru$"!khe for PWRs aad BWRs wing LEU hals, Nevarthstess, some of +e1 -$~tl'rnm$kY { .'I i

\VU$ of the o p ~ that n higher in-vessel releases (and @ter rate of ndahsbs) are exp68ti8 fat MOX fiek 89 compared with LEU fixe&, Note that some of the identified wnoggtieq are nat spsoffic to MOX hrais md are equally applicabla to LEU and. high, ) r ,

burnup,',fUls (Le,, lack oP data for effacts of

,i<.. -

I c ,I e,

Energy Research, h a . 5;r .. . I e m c 02-202

' I I,, ..

., ..I, .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC August 25,2003 (11:OOAM)

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND In the Matter of ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370, DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 50-413, and 50-414 (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE BY DIANE CURRAN i Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.713, Diane Curran hereby enters an appearance in this proceeding as duly authorized legal counsel for Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. Undersigned counsel is a member in good standing of the bars of the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, the U.S.District Court for the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. and First Circuits.

Respectfully submitted, Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, L.L.P 1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 20213 28-3 5 00 FAX 2021328-6918 dcnrran@,hannoncurran.com August 25,2003

1726 M Street, N W , Suite 6 August 25,2003 Office of the Secretary Attn: Rulemakings ancl Adjudications Branch U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 1555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MJJ 20852

Subject:

Filing in CatawbaMcGuire license amendment proceeding, Docket Nos. 50-369,50-370,SO-413, 50-414

Dear Madadsir,

On behalf of Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, I am enclosing a Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene, including two exhibits. Please note that Exhibit 1,the Declaration of Gregg Jocoy, is a copy of a fax. I did not receive the original signed copy in time for this filing. I will forward the original when I receive it.

In addition, I am enclosing a Notice of Appearance.

Sincerely, Z L L Diane Curran Cc: Service list