ML19312E973
| ML19312E973 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1980 |
| From: | Dignan T, Gad R Maine Yankee, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006180274 | |
| Download: ML19312E973 (11) | |
Text
l v; N
,/
Prm
- t k Lll S I.'if}P )~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAiW,1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION G % CCa ( before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ) In the Matter of ) ) Docket No. 50-309 MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY ) (Spent Fuel Pool ) Compaction) (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station) ) ) LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S SPF.CIFIC CONTENTIONS Pursuant to leave granted by the Board, the Licensee hereby responds to the "Intervenor's Specific Contentions" as follows: Introduction Set forth below, are the Licensee's individual responses to individual contentions made by the intervenor Sensible Maine Power (SMP). However, prior to engaging in a point-by-point consideration of each contention, a consideration of certain general principles which apply to this proceeding would appear to be in order. A number of the contentions begin with the phraseology that the Licensee (and some times the Staff) "has not adequately considered" something. Whether the s o o e1s_oagv 6
E Licensee or the Staff has adequately considered something is not at issue here. On the safety side of this case, the ' issue is'whether or not it has been demonstrated that what-ever concept underlies the contention.is or is not in conformity ~ with the Act, Rules ~and Regulations. Under NEPA the issues are what the environmental effects of the proposed action will be; and whether the suggested alternative is available, environ-mentally superior and, if so, whether other considerations out-weigh the environmental superiority. Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-584, 11 NRC __, 2 CCH Nuclear Reg. Rep. 1 30,467 at
- p. 29,331 (March 24, 1980).
In cases where the contention is otherwise acceptable, Licensee simply suggests a rephrasing of the contention. A spent fuel pool expansion case is not the forum for 4 relitigating all or any of the fundamental safety and environ-mental issues which were resolved at the time the forty-year l operating license was issued. See Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-455, 7.NRC 41, 46.n.4 (1978); Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263, 266 n.6 (1979). As will be seen below,;many of the contentions propose to do just that. Contention 1
- Contention 1 proposes the. litigation of the issue of I
~ We whether 12fspecific-alternatives should be considered. a
deal with these seriatim below: "(a) The construction of another, new or additional spent fuel pool onsite; (b) The physical expansion or enlargement of the existing spent fuel pool; (c) The construction of a new spent fuel pool offsite." Litigation of each of these three alternatives (a)-(c) appears to be precluded by the Appeal Board's decision in ALAB-584, supra. It is patently obvious that these three alterna-tives require more environmental disruption than the current proposal. ALAB-584, 31 NRC at __, 2 CCH Nuclear Reg. Rep. at pp. 29,331-32. "(d) The contracting out or tranship-ment of spent fuel for storage at another power p?. ant, or commercial or government-owned spent fuel storage facility, current informa-
- ion of the Commission indicating that the same will be available before 1983" No objection is made to this contention provided the issuas for litigation are:
(1) Is there assurance that the proposed alternative will be available in the necessary time frame? (ii) Assuming an affirmative answer to (1), is the proposed j l l alternative environmentally superior to the proposed action? (iii)~ Assuming affirmative answers to (i) and (ii), are there any considerations which outweigh' the environmental superiority? ALAB-584, supra, at 29,331. "(e) Other alternative storage opportuni-ties, whether governmental or private, currently under study, analysis or review; "(1) Development of~other power sources" These contentions are too vague. The day is long passed when an intervenor may simply suggest the possibility of unspecified alternatives and require NRC to ferret out further alternatives and conduct adjudicatory proceedings with respect thereto. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 'U.S. 519, 551-54 (1978); Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. -NRC, 598 F.2d 1221 (1st Cir. 1979). "(f) Conversion of facility enabling it to burn coal, oil, gas, or other non-nuclear fuel;. .(g) Closing or shutting down the facility; (h) Derating the facility, that is, reducing plant output and thereby reducing the . generation of spent fuel; .(1) Extending fuel-burnup times and thereby. reducing the generation of spent fuel;" _AllLof these alternatives.are put forward on the theory.-.
.that they would reduce'the amount of spent fuel generated. However, the environmental acceptability of the total waste which Maine Yankee will produce has already been litigated; -the proposed compaction will not allow the generation of more waste than was already found acceptable in the operating license proceeding; thus, these alternatives should not be litigated here. See ALAB-455, supra at 46 n.4; ALAB-531, supra at 266 n.6. "(j) The purchase.of less expensive electrical power from readily available sources, (E.g., The Hon. Rene Levesque, Prime Minister of Quebec, recently visited Maine seeking a market for less expensive Canadial. hydroelectric power); i (k) Development or utilization of hydro-electric capability at existing __ 'amsites within the State of Maine;" These are. economic alte.' natives, and as such are irrelevant 'to the pro'ceeding and should be excluded from litigation. ALAB-584, suprp, 11 NRC at __, 2 CCH Nuclear Reg. Rep. at 1 29,330-i 31; Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-458, 7'NRC 155, 162-63 (1978); ALAB-531, supra, at 266. Contention 2 "2. Neither Applicant nor Staff has adequately -analyzed the probability or effects of the liquid and gaseous radioactive emissions likely to result from the proposed d/r/c scheme, nor has there.been any showing that adverse environmental effects from the same will be kept within regulatory limits. Harmful emissions smost likely to occur are Iodine 131, Cesium 137, -Strontium.90, and. Tritium.. Further, the adverse environmental impact of additional heat likely to be discharged in the vicinity of the plant as a result of the proposed d/r/c scheme has not been adequately analyzed by Applicant or Staff, and such failures violate NEPA. "Such emissions are rendered more likely by the significantly increased handling and rehandling of spent fuel, higher concentrations of spent fuel, and the greater decay heat generated by spent fuel, in the proposed d/r/c scheme." No objection is made provided the issues to be litigated are: (1) Whether the radioactive emissions resulting from operation of Maine Yankee with compacted fuel storage will be in accord with NRC regula-tions. (ii) Whether the environmental effects, if any, of the increased heat discha"ges if any, are such as to require rejection cf the amendment on a cost-benefit basis. Contention 3 "3 Applicant's proposal does not ensure that spent fuel pool conditions will be maintained within regulatory or design limits in the event of a Class 9 or other extreme accident in the main reactor. Neither Applicant nor Staff has shown that in such case the electrical systems, cooling systems, and plant personnel will func-tion sufficiently well to ensure cont'_..ad safe opera-tion of the spent fuel pool. Further, and given greater amounts of more densely packed fuel, all adverse conse-quences will be Worsened by Applicant's schele, including cladding fires and spent fuel explosions." Consideration of the consequences of " Class 9" accidents in this proceeding is precluded by prior decisions of the Commission and the Appeal Board. Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-80-8, 11 NRC 2 CCH Nuclear Reg. Rep. t 30,466 (March 21, 1980); Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-587, 11 NRC , 2 CCH Nuclear Reg. Rep. t 30,469 (March 28, 1980). See also Public Service Electric & Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-588, 11 NRC __, 2 CCH Nuclear Reg. Rep. t 30,470 (April 1, 1980). Contention 4 The fourth centention alleges a due process violation on the theory that the amendment application is premature or incomplete or both. I t' this is a contention that the applica-tion should not have been accepted for filing, this Board is without jurisdiction to entertain it; only the Staff can refuse applications. New England Power Co. (NEP Units 1 & 2), LBP-78-9, 7 NRC 271, 280 (1980). If the contention is that more information should be given intervenors before the hearing on the merits starts, that is what discovery is for. In any event, the contention presents no litigable issue. Contentions 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13 Licensee has no objections to contentions Nos. 5, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 13 assuming that Licensee correctly understands the issues to be litigated to be as follows: _7_
(1) Whether the calculated occupational exposures resulting from the proposed action will be in accord with Commission regulations? (Contention 5) (ii) Whether the Licensee's proposed operating procedures are such as to give reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will not be endangered? (Conten-tion 6) (iii) Whether the materials in the spent fuel pool are such that assuming amendment of the license in the manner requested, there is reasonable assurance that the public health and cafety will not be endangered? (Contention 7) (iv) Whether the proper design basis accidents have been chosen, and whether proper analysis thereof shows that the grant of the amendment will not be inimical to the public health and safety? (Contentions 10, 12) (v) Assuming the amendment is granted will operation of the facility be in accord with the Comnission's re' lations and is there reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will not be endangered? (Contention 13) 1 Contentions 8, 9, 14 i . Contentions 8, 9 and 14 seek the admission into contro-versy of issues as to Maine Yankee's seismic design (Conten-tion 8); Maine Yankee's ability to withstand aircraft strikes (Contention 9) and the adequacy of the evacuation plan for i Maine Yankee (Contention 14). Each of these matters was 4 subject to scrutiny at the operating license hearing. The proposed amendment will not result in any structual changes in the facility and will not in any way change available egress and access to the plant or its surrounding area. ) If.someone wishes to relitigate Maine Yankee's seismic design, j design against aircraft strikes or evacuation plan, the proper vehicle is a petition to the Staff for a show cause order, i j 10 CFR $ 2.202 et seq. } Contention 11 "ll. Neither Staff nor Applicant has adequately considered or analyzed the long-term health, safety and environmental effects of the proposed d/r/c scheme with respect to such periods of time over which the spent fuel pool is likely to be used beyond the expiration'of ' Applicant's operating license. "Further, insofar as Applicant fails to consider the costs of long-term operation and maintenance of the spent fuel ~ pool beyond the expiration of its license, such failure invalidates all cost-benefit analyses relative to the proposed scheme." Storage'cf spent. fuel on.or offsite beyond the duration ) 1 of an operating license is not an issue which may be pursued inLthis proceeding. NRC, Storage and Disposal of Nuclear i e-o n om -v<- sww ,wy, .=reoc..es,-m,.--y_,em -w--
Waste, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 44 Fed. Reg. 61372, 61373 (Oct. 25, 1979; ALAB-584, supra at pp. 29,335-36. Respectfp11y submitted, .-: $ G W ~ y - Thomas' G. Dignan, Jr. R. K. Gad III Ropes & Gray Attorneys for Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Dated: June 11, 1980 i 1 i s CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., hereby certify that on June 11, 1980, I made service of the within document, by mailing a copy thereof, postage prepaid, to: Robert M. Lazo, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. Director, Bodega Marine Laboratory Universit.t of California P.O. Box 247 Bodega Bay, California 94923 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Henry J. McGurren, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Stanley R. Tupper, Esquire Tupper and Bradley 102 Townsend Avenue Boothbay Harbor, ME 04538 David Santee Miller, Esquire 213 Morgan Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 John M. R. Paterson, Esquire Deputy Attorney General l Department of the Attorney General State House Augusta, ME 04333 y- - -W / Thcfmas G. Digrygff, Jr. -}}