ML12191A383
| ML12191A383 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Watts Bar  |
| Issue date: | 07/09/2012 |
| From: | Curran D Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 22941, 50-391-OL, ASLBP 09-893-01-OL-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12191A383 (9) | |
Text
July 9, 2012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-391-OL Tennessee Valley Authority )
)
(Watts Bar Unit 2) )
___________________________________ )
SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGYS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A NEW CONTENTION CONCERNING TEMPORARY STORAGE AND ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OF SPENT REACTOR FUEL AT WATTS BAR UNIT 2 I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(f)(1) and 2.309(f)(2), Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) seeks leave to file a new contention which challenges the failure of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) draft environmental impact statement for the operation of Watts Bar Unit 2 (NUREG-04598, Supp. 2, Draft Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (Oct. 2011) (Draft SFES)) to address the environmental impacts of spent fuel pool leakage and fires as well as the environmental impacts that may occur if a spent fuel repository does not become available. The contention is based on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuits recent decision in State of New York v. NRC, No. 11-1045 (June 8, 2012), which invalidated the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) Waste Confidence Decision Update (75 Fed. Reg. 81,037 (Dec. 23, 2010)) (WCD) and the NRCs final rule regarding Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation (75 Fed. Reg. 81,032 (Dec. 23, 2010))
(Temporary Storage Rule or TSR). State of New York vacated the generic findings in 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(a) regarding the safety and environmental impacts of spent fuel storage. As a 1
result, the NRC no longer has any legal basis for Section 51.23(b), which relies on those findings to exempt both the agency staff and license applicants from addressing long-term spent fuel storage impacts in individual licensing proceedings.
SACE recognizes that because the mandate has not yet issued in State of New York, this contention may be premature. Nevertheless, SACE is submitting the contention within 30 days of becoming aware of the courts ruling, in light of Commission precedents judging the timeliness of motions and contentions according to when petitioners became aware of a decisions potential effect on their interests. Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-02-28, 56 NRC 373, 386 (2002). If the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board or Commission determines that this contention is premature, SACE requests that consideration of the contention be held in abeyance pending issuance of the mandate.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In 1984, the NRC issued its first WCD, making findings regarding the safety of spent fuel disposal and the safety and environmental impacts of spent fuel storage. Over the several decades that have passed since then, the NRC has updated the WCD. The latest update was issued in December 2010. On June 8, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit took review of the NRCs 2010 WCD Update and TSR and vacated those rules in their entirety. In the course of reviewing the WCD Update, the court found that the WCD is a major federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), therefore requiring either a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or an environmental impact statement (EIS). Id.,
slip op. at 8. The court also found it was eminently clear that the WCD will be used to enable licensing decisions based on its findings because the WCD renders uncontestable general 2
conclusions about the environmental effect of plant licensure that will apply in every licensing decision. Id., slip op. at 9 (citing 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(b)).
With respect to the WCDs conclusions regarding spent fuel disposal, the court observed that the NRC has no long-term plan other than hoping for a geologic repository and that spent reactor fuel will seemingly be stored on site at nuclear plants on a permanent basis if the government continues to fail in its quest to site a permanent repository. Id., slip op. at 13.
Thus, the court concluded that the WCD must be vacated with respect to its conclusion in Finding 2 that a suitable spent fuel repository will be available when necessary. Id., slip op. at
- 11. In order to comply with NEPA, the court found that the NRC must examine the environmental effects of failing to establish a repository. Id., slip op. at 12.
With respect to the TSRs conclusions regarding the environmental impacts of temporary storage of spent reactor fuel at reactor sites, the court concluded that the NRCs environmental assessment (EA) and FONSI issued as part of the TSR are not supported by substantial evidence on the record in two respects. First, the NRC had reached a conclusion that the environmental impacts of spent fuel pool leaks will be insignificant, based on an evaluation of past leakage. The court concluded that the past incidence of leaks was not an adequate predictor of leakage thirty years hence, and therefore ordered the NRC to examine the risks of spent fuel pool leaks in a forward-looking fashion. Id., slip op. at 14. In addition, the court found that the NRCs analysis of the environmental impacts of pool fires was deficient because it examined only the probability of spent fuel pool fires and not their consequences. Id., slip op. at 18-19.
Depending on the weighing of the probability and the consequences, the court observed, an EIS may or may not be required. Id., slip op. at 19.
In remanding the WCD Update and the TSR to the NRC, the court purposely did not 3
express an opinion regarding whether an EIS would be required or an EA would be sufficient.
Instead, it left that determination up to the discretion of the NRC. Id., slip op. at 12, 20.
III. CONTENTION A. Statement of the Contention The Draft SFES for Watts Bar Unit 2 does not satisfy NEPA because it does not include a discussion of the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage after cessation of operation, including the impacts of spent fuel pool leakage, spent fuel pool fires, and failing to establish a spent fuel repository, as required by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in State of New York v. NRC, No. 11-1045 (June 8, 2012). Therefore, unless and until the NRC conducts such an analysis, no license may be issued.
B. The Contention Satisfies the NRCs Admissibility Requirements in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)
- 1. Brief Summary of the Basis for the Contention The contention is based on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuits decision in State of New York v. NRC, which invalidated the NRCs generic findings in 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(a) regarding the safety and environmental impacts of spent fuel storage after cessation of reactor operation with respect to spent fuel pool leakage, pool fires, and the environmental impacts of failing to establish a repository. As a result, the NRC no longer has any legal basis for Section 51.23(b), which relies on those findings to exempt both the agency staff and license applicants from addressing spent fuel storage impacts in individual licensing proceedings. To the extent that the Draft FSES for Watts Bar Unit 2 addresses spent fuel storage impacts, it does not address the concerns raised by the Court in State of New York.
Therefore, before Watts Bar Unit 2 can be licensed, those impacts must be addressed.
4
SACE does not currently take a position on the question of whether the environmental impacts of post-operational spent fuel storage should be discussed in an individual EIS or environmental assessment for this facility or a generic EIS or environmental assessment. That question must be decided by the NRC in the first instance. Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. v.
NRDC, 462 U.S. 87 (1983). SACE reserves the right to challenge the adequacy of any generic analysis the NRC may prepare in the future to address the site-specific environmental conditions at Watts Bar Unit 2. The current circumstances, however, are such that the NRC has no valid environmental analysis, either generic or site-specific, on which to base the issuance of a license for this facility.
- 2. The Contention is Within the Scope of the Proceeding The contention is within the scope of this licensing proceeding because it seeks to ensure that the NRC complies with the NEPA before issuing an operating license for Watts Bar Unit 2.
There is no doubt that the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage must be addressed in all NRC reactor licensing decisions. State of New York, slip op. at 8 (holding that the WCD is a predicate to every licensing decision); Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
- 3. The Issues Raised Are Material to the Findings that the NRC Must Make to Support the Action that is Involved in this Proceeding The issues raised in this contention are material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in this proceeding, in that the NRC must render findings pursuant to NEPA covering all potentially significant environmental impacts. See discussion above in subsection (2). As such, in the absence of 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(a), it is clear that this contention addresses a material omission in the Staffs environmental review pursuant to NEPA.
- 4. Concise Statement of Facts of Expert Opinion Support the Contention 5
This contention is based primarily on law rather than facts. SACE has adequately supported the contention by citing State of New York and discussing its legal effect on this proceeding. SACE also relies on the undisputed fact that the NRC has taken no steps to cure the deficiencies in the basis for 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(a) that the Court identified in State of New York.
- 5. A Genuine Dispute Exists with the Applicant on a Material Issue of Law or Fact.
SACE has a genuine dispute with the applicant regarding the legal adequacy of the environmental analysis on which the applicant relies in seeking an operating license in this proceeding. Unless or until the NRC cures the deficiencies identified in State of New York or the applicant withdraws its application, this dispute will remain alive.
IV. THE CONTENTION IS TIMELY PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2).
The contention meets the timeliness requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2), which call for a showing that:
(i) The information upon which the amended or new contention is based was not previously available; (ii) The information upon which the amended or new contention is based is materially different than information previously available; and (iii) The amended or new contention has been submitted in a timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.
Id.
SACE satisfies all three prongs of this test. First, the information on which the contention is based -- i.e., the invalidity of 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(b) and the findings on which it is based -- is new and materially different from previously available information. Prior to June 8, 2012, 10 C.F.R. § 51.23 was presumptively valid. Subsequent to the issuance of State of New 6
York by the U.S. Court of Appeals, the NRC no longer has a lawful basis for relying on that regulation to exempt itself or license applicants from considering the environmental impacts of post-operational spent fuel storage in the environmental analyses for individual reactor license applications. By the same token, the generic analyses in the WCD and the TSR, on which the NRC relied for all of its reactor licensing decisions, are no longer sufficient to support the issuance of a license. Therefore the NRC lacks an adequate legal or factual basis to issue an operating license for Watts Bar Unit 2.
Finally, the contention is timely because it has been submitted within 30 days of June 8, 2012, the date the U.S. Court of Appeals issued State of New York.
V. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, SACE respectfully requests that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board grant leave to file its contention.
Respectfully submitted, Electronically signed by Diane Curran HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG, & EISENBERG, L.L.P.
1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-328-3500 Fax: 202-328-6918 e-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com July 9, 2012 7
CERTIFICATION REGARDING CONSULTATION PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. § 2.323 I certify that on July 7, 2012, I contacted counsel for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the NRC Staff to seek their consent to this motion. Counsel for TVA stated that TVA would oppose the motion. Counsel for the NRC Staff stated that the Staff does not oppose the filing of the motion, but that based on the representations in SACEs counsels e-mail, the Staff does not have enough information to take a position on the admissibility of the contention. The Staff will respond to the contention when it is filed.
Electronically signed by Diane Curran 8
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
Tennessee Valley Authority ) Docket No. 50-391
)
(Watts Bar Unit 2) )
____________________________________)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 9, 2012, I posted on the NRCs Electronic Information Exchange System copies of the foregoing Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning Temporary Storage and Ultimate Disposal of Spent Reactor Fuel at Watts Bar Unit 2. It is my understanding that as a result, the following parties were served:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Paul B. Abramson Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Gary S. Arnold Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20004 Mail Stop T-3F23 ksutton@morganlewis.com Lgm1@nrc.gov, pba@nrc.gov, wxb3@nrc.gov pbessette@morganlewis.com NRC Office of the Secretary NRC Office of Appellate Commission Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Hearing.docket@nrc.gov ocaamail@nrc.gov David E. Roth, Esq. Edward J. Vigluicci, Esq.
Edward Williamson, Esq. Christopher C. Chandler, Esq.
Catherine Kanatas, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Office of General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Washington, D.C. 20555 WT 6A-K David.roth@nrc.gov, Knoxville, TN 37902 Catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov, elw2@nrc.gov ejvigluicci@tva.gov, ccchandler0@tva.gov (signed electronically by)
Diane Curran 9