ML20052H854
| ML20052H854 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1982 |
| From: | Gutierrez J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205240078 | |
| Download: ML20052H854 (7) | |
Text
05/20/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B0ARD In the Matter of MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-309
)
(Spent Fuel)
(Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station )
a NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE STATE OF MAINE'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION I.
INTRODUCTION On April 30, 1982, the State of Maine filed a petition requesting this Board to reconsider that part of its Order of April 12, 1982 rejecting proposed contentions two and sixteen. The Staff opposes the State's petition since (1) the Board properly rejec'ted both contentions and (ii) the State has not set forth in its petition for reconsideration any argument warranting reversal of the Board's earlier ruling. The Staff will next address each contention.
II.
DISCUSSION A.
Contention Two On October 5, 1981, the State filed " Amended Contentions of the State of Maine." Proposed contention two states:
"The proposed license amendments to permit reracking and pin compaction significantly increase both the probability of occurrence of a release of radiation or radioactive materials into the environment and the environment 31 consequences of such a release in the event of a total or partial loss of coolant at the spent fuel pool. The
, I)ESIGNATID ORIGINAL -
8205240078 820520 1
PDR ADOCK 05000309 3' X 3 7 o
$0(
e '.
N licensee has failed to demonstrate, as required by the Atomic Energy Act and 10 C.F.R., Part 50, that there is reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will not be endangered by these risks." Amended Contentions of the State of Maine at 7.
As a basis for this contention the State incorporated by reference the basis for its proposed Contention 1(a).
In essence, several loss-of-coolant accidents were postulated and it was then asserted the proba-bility of such accidents would be increased by the proposed license amendment. Beyond the mere assertion that they do, the State made no attempt in either its filing of October 5,1981 or April 30, 1982 to explain how any of the accident scenarios listed was specifically related to, or the probability of their occurrence was increased by, the proposed license amendment (as opposed to the mere existence of the spent fuel pool).
In its Order of April 12, 1982, the Board ruled this contention inadmissible as follows:
"In this contention, the State asserts that the proposed license amendment will increase the probability and consequences of a loss of coolant from the spent fuel pool. The licensee objects to this contention as challenging the design for the reactor pool, a matter which it says was resolved at the operating license stage. The licensee also points out that no basis is provided for the assertion that the probability of an accident will be increased by the proposed amendments. The Staff objects to this contention both on the basis of lack of specificity and on the lack of basis for the belief that such an accident could occur at Maine Yankee.
The Board finds this contention inadmissible. This contention is so lacking in specificity that the parties are not on noticed about its content. No reasonably specific mechanism for such an accident is alleged, nor is it clear how the probability of an accident would be increased." Order at 17.
o.
N In its petition for reconsideration, the State does not provide any further basis or explanation which would warrant admitting proposed contention two. The State simply attaches the basis it earlier provided in its October 5.1981 pleading and directs the Board's attention to Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542 (1980), thereby suggesting that the Board need not consider the merits of the State's contention at this pleading stage. The State does not, however, confront the flaw in its proposed contention. The State has not explained in a meaningful way the link between the postulated loss-of-coolant accidents it cites in its proffered basis and the proposed license amendment. Therefore, the contention is so lacking in specificity that the parties have not been put on sufficient notice to know what they have to defend or oppose.
Philadelphia Electric Co., et al., (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974).
It was for this reason the Board properly rejected proposed contention two and this flaw remains.
B.
Contention Sixteen Proposed contention sixteen states:
"Neither the licensee nor the NRC staff have addressed the extent to which unresolved generic safety issues will affect the proposed expansion of Maine Yankee's spent fuel pool. Amended Contentions of the State of Maine, October 5,1981, at 20.
As a basis for this proposed contention the State asserts that a number of the unresolved generic safety issues identified in NUREG-0510 and 0705 directly affect the safe operation of the spent fuel pool and
N consequently such issues must be evaluated to determine whether Maine Yankee can safety operate following implementation of the proposed new storage methods pending resolution of these generic issues.E The Board properly rejected contention sixteen by ruling:
Contention 16 states that neither the Licensee or the Staff has considered the effect unresolved generic safety issues will have on the proposed spent fuel pool expansion. As noted by the Staff, the State has not shown how these matters relate to the spent fuel pool expansion other the [ sic] than to boldly assert that they do so. 1his is not a sufficient basis for the contention, and it is rejected." Order at 22.
The State has not cured this defect in its petition for recon-sideration nor has it shown the Board's previous ruling to be in error. Once again, the State simply attaches the basis it provided in its pleading of October 5,1981, to its most recent filing. As stated previously in this case, a proceeding to consider a proposal to modify spent fuel pool operations may not be used as a vehicle to question all aspects of continued operations of a facility which already has been granted an operating license.
See "NRC Staff's Reponse to Contentions Filed by the State of Maine" October 26, 1981, at 3-6 and 20. This is particularly so with respect to unresolved safety issues which, even in the context of a construction permit or operating license proceeding, may only be litigated under narrowly defined situations.
See Gulf States Utility Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760 (1977).
-1/
The State goes on to cite Task A-17, A-24, A-36, A-40, A-46, and A-47 and then maintains that,each of these generic unresolved safety issues must be examined on the record of this proceeding because they indirectly affect the proposed spent fuel pool expansion.
III. CONCLUSION 4
For the reasons aforesaid, the Staff submits (i) the Board properly rejected both contentions two and sixteen in its Order of April 12, 1982 and (ii) the State has not set forth in its petition for reconsideration any argument warranting reversal of the Board's earlier ruling.
Accordingly, this Board should admit neither contention two nor sixteen.
Respectfully submitted,
}$f.
Jay M. Guti rrez Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, flaryland this 20th day of May, 1982.
I 1
l
N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-309
)
(SpentFuel)
(Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station)) ~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE STATE OF MAINE'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this 20th day of May, 1982.
Robert M. Lazo, Esq., Chairman
- Administrative Judge Rufus E. Brown Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Deputy Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Department of the Attorney General Washington, DC 20555 State House Augusta, ME 04333 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
Administrative Judge and Director, Bodega liarine Laboratory David Santee Miller University of California Counsel for Petitioner P.O. Box 247 213 Morgan Street, N.W.
Bodega Bay, CA 94923 Washington, DC 20001 Peter A. Morris
- Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing
^
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel *-
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comissica U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Thomas Dignan, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Ropes,& Gray
. Appeal Board
- 225 franklin Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Boston,f1A - 02110 Washington, DC 20555 Stanley Tupper Docketing and Service Section*
Tupper & Bradley Office of the Secretary 102 Townsend Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Boothbay Harbor, ME 04538 Washington, DC C0555 O
?
h v -"'
I 1
1,
I
.\\
)
David Colton-Manheim i
Box #386 Bedford's Barn l
Gouldsboro, Maine 04607 1
i r
A N. G ~
o el C Staff i
I l
f i
t
)
i k
1 l
l.
L 1
..--m.r. -~.mm
_--r,-w
_,,,~r,.-,,-.-,-m,m,,,--..,
,,-.,---,-,=y-
-. - -, -,,,.wwy-
--