ML20054A076
| ML20054A076 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 04/12/1982 |
| From: | Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | ECISMP, MAINE, STATE OF |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8204150266 | |
| Download: ML20054A076 (26) | |
Text
g c ;afir *'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)4 3 n,. u,
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
b Administrative Judges:
p Robert M. Lazo, Chairman RECElyED
$@N Dr. Peter A. Morris d'
Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
O namaApp1519825-e f bII: 7 N
o t
6
=
)
In the Matter of:
)
Docket No. 50-309-0LA
)
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY
)
)
(Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station)
April 12, 1982
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pursuant to the Board's Prehearing Conference Order dated August 24, 1981, as amended by Order of September 15, 1981, the Intervenor, Sensible Maine Power (SMP), and the Petitioner, the State of Maine (State), each filed revised contentions in this proceeding on October 5, 1981.
Responses to each set of revised contentions have been filed by Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (Licensee) and the NRC Staff. On January 19, 1982, the State filed a document entitled, " State of Maine Response to Objections to its Amended Contentions Filed by Licensee and NRC Staff." A "similar document entitled, "Intervenor's Response to Staff and Applicant p50%
so i 8204150266 820412 PDR ADOCK 05000309 C
~~
, Objections to Intervenor's Contentions" was filed by SMP on January 24, 1982.
I For a proposed contention to be admissible, it must comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. s 2.714(b) and appl,icable Commission case law.
See, e.g., Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Va'lley, Units No. 1),
ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 245 (1973); Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island, Unit Nos.1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188,194 (1973), aff'd, BPI v.
Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
10 C.F.R. 2.714(b) requires that a list of contentions which petitioners seek to have litigated be filed along with the bases for those contentions set forth with reasonable specificity.
A contention must be rejected where:
(a) it constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirements; (b) it challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (c) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the intervenor's views of what applicable policies ought to be; (d) it seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or (e) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.
' Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 &
3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974).
i l
l
'~
~~
, The purpose of the basis requirement of 1U C.F.R.
2.714 is to assure that the contention in question does not suffer from any of the infirmities listed above, to establish sufficient foundation for the contention to warrant further inquiry of the subject matter in the proceeding, and to put the other parties sufficiently on notice "so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." Peach Bottom, 8 AEC at 20.
From the standpoint of basis, it is unnecessary for the petition "to detail the evidence which will be offered in support of each contention." Mississippi Power & Light Co.
(Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973).
However, the degree of specificity with which the basis for a contention must be alleged involves the Board's judgment on a case by case basis.
Peach Bottom, 8 AEC at 20.
Finally, in examining the contentions and the bases therefore, a licensing board is not to reach the merits of the contentions. Duke Power Co. (Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773-Transportation of Spent Fuel From Oconee Nuclear Station for S' orage at McGuire Nuclear Station), ALAB-528, 9 NRC 146,151 (1979);
t Peach Bottom, 8 AEC at 20; Grand Gulf, 6 AEC at 426.
In a recent decision, Houston Lighting and Power Company ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542 (1980),
the Appeal Board applied the principles described above governing the admissibility of contentions.
The decision emphasized that in ruling on
'the admissibility of a contention, a licensing board is not to venture beyond the contention and its stated basis into the merits of the contention. Any question concerning the validity of the contention or of l
i i
y---
r, 7,g.
. i its basis must be left for consideration when the merits of the controversy are reached, i.e., through summary disposition or in the evidentiary hearing.
Id. at 546-551.
Where, as here, a proceeding involves a proposed license amendment to allow modification of a spent fuel pool, the Licensing Board may only consider matters relevant to that modification. As stated in Commonweal'th Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-616, 12 NRC 419, 426 (1980):
As the Board correctly perceived, its jurisdiction was limited by the Commission's notice of hearing. That jurisdiction extended only to issues fairly raised by application to modify the spent fuel pool, the sole matter which the Comission had placed before it.
[Footnotesomitted]
II Sensible Maine Power has submitted eighteen contentions. The Board's ruling on each of these contentions is set forth below.
Contention 1 The essence of this contention is that the proposed license amendment would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, thereby requiring the preparation 6f a Final Environmental (Impact) Statement (FES) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NRC regulations. Licensee and the 4
Staff both oppose the contention.
. ~.
. The issue sought to be raised in Contention 1 is premature.
The Staff has not yet prepared an environmental impact appraisal with regard to the proposed action.
Therefore, no conclusion has been reached by the Staff on whether an environmental impact statement is needed.
Contentions concerning the need for or content of an FES are appropriately raised after the Staff has issued its environmental impact appraisal or draft environmental (impact) statement.
(DES). E.
Consumers Power Co.
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), ALAB-636, 13 NRC 312, 329-312 (1981) (Licensing Board should await issuance of the Staff's environmental analysis before deciding whether an EIS must be prepared for a spent fuel pool expansion).
Therefore, this contention is rejected as premature.
Certain contentions such as this one on the need for an EIS may relate to material which has not yet been issued when the petitions for intervention are due.
Because it is not possible to formulate reasonably specific contentions concerning such materials at the time other contentions are due, such contentions need not be filed until shortly after.the materials become available.
SMP's contention 1 falls into this category as do SMP's contentions 3, 4, 6(b) and (c) and the State's contentions la, Ib, Ic,1d, 5 and 11.
Therefore, contentions concerning these matters should be filed within 30 days of the issuance of the appropriate documents to avoid being untimely. At that time, this Board will consider whether the proposed contentions satisfy the general
' criteria for admissibility.
I
. Contention 2 In Contention 2, SMP asserts that the application for the proposed amendment is premature because the Licensee has not shown a present need for pin compaction or use of the cask lay down area for storage.
Both the Licensee and the Staff assert that there is no regulatory requirement that the Licensee show an immediate need for an amendment of this nature.
We agree and find the contention inadmissible.
Contention 3 In this contention, SMP maintains that the Licensee has not provided specific operating procedures for implementing its proposal if the amendment is approved. The Licensee objected to the proposed contention as being too vague.
The Staff objects to it on the grounds that such detailed procedures need not be set forth at this time.
The Board agrees that there is no requirement that such procedures be submitted now and, therefore, rejects this contention.
However, the Board expects that the Staff will have an opportunity to review these procedures before they are implemented by the Licensee.
If at some later time when the Licensee has developed specific procedures, SMP wishes to submit contentions directed to their adequacy, the Board will evaluate such contentions at that time i
i Contention 4 In this contention, SMP lists a number ~of alternatives which it
' alleges are environmentally preferable and have not been considered by the Licensee or the Staff. The Licensee responds that alternatives need not be considered unless an EIS is required.
In addition, the Licensee notes 1/ See p.5 % 2
, that the contention does not specify why the listed alternatives must be given further consideration. The Staff, agreeing with the Licensee's latter point, states that the contention is without basis.
The Board agrees with the Staff that this contention is without basis at this time. The Staff has not yet determined whether an EIS is needed or prepared an environmental impact appraisal.
Thus, it is too early to state that the Staff's environmental review will not cover the enumerated alternatives. Moreover, it is the understanding of the Board that NEPA requires consideration of alternatives "only when the proposed action is a
' major' one 'significantly affecting the quality of the human environment' or ' involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.'
42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C),(E)." Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-650, 14 NRC 43, 65 n.33 (1981); see Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-584, 11 NRC 451, 457-58 (1980), appeal pending sub nom Potomac Alliance v. NRC, No. 80-1862 (D.C.
C.ircuit, July 28,1980). Lacking at present the Staff's documents, the Board cannot determine whether NEPA imposes a requirement to consider alternatives and, therefore, this contention is presently without basis.
This contention is rejected as premature. A contention on this subje would be timely if filed after the Staff's document is issued.
If one is filed at that time, this Board will consider its admissibility.2-
, Contention 5 This contention, as amended, was admitted as an issue in controversy in this proceeding during the prehearing conference on August 11, 1981.
2/ See p.5 1 2
! The wording of the contention will be that agreed to by the parties at that time.
See Prehearing Conference Order at n.1 ( August 24,1981).
Contention 6 This contention is in three parts.
Contention 6(a) alleges that liquid and gaseous radioactive emission resulting from implementation of Liceasee's plan will not be kept within regulatory limits including ALARA.
Both the Licensee and the Staff object that this part of the contention is vague.
The Licensee proposes rewording this part of the contention to state:
There is 'no reasonable assurance that normal operation of MYAPS with expanded fuel pool capacity will be carried out in compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 20.
SMP does not reject this phrasing of its contention, and the Board admits it as so phrased.
Contentions 6(b) and 6(c) state that heat emissions will be increased because of higher concentrations of spent fuel and that heat emissions will exceed regulatory limits and ALARA.
In addition, SMP asserts that the heat emissions are not justifiable on a cost-benefit basis.
Both the Licensee and the Staff object to Contentions 6(b) and 6(c) t on the grounds of vagueness.
In addition, they correctly point out that there are no regulatory limits for heat under the Atomic Energy Act and tha ALARA does not apply to heat emissions.
Therefore, as f ar as this
, part of the contention involves those concepts (i.e., heat emission and 1
ALARA), it is without basis and the Board rejects it.
. Insofar at this contention seeks to have a cost-benefit study done on this amendment, it is seeking an EIS under NEPA. As discussed previously, a contention that an EIS is needed is premature at this time.
It must await the completion of the Staff's environmental review. Therefore, this partofthecontentionalsoisrejected[initsNEPAaspects].2/
Contention 7 In this contention, SMP asserts that the Licensee's proposal does not provide assurance that the spent fuel pool would continue to operate safely in the event of a Class 9 or other extreme reactor accident.
The Licensee maintains that Class 9 accidents are not within the scope of this proceeding. The Staff, basically agreeing with the Licensee, states that the contention is not admissible because SMP has not shown a nexus between the proposed amendment and the referenced accidents.
This Board has jurisdiction to consider only issues concerning the application to modify the spent fuel pool which were specified by the Commission's notice of hearing.
See Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Stati.on, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-616, 12 NRC 419, 426-427 (1980).
It is unclear that this contention relates to the proposed amendment. There is no indication how the proposed modification could affect the ability of the spent fuel pool to operate in the event of a Class 9 accident in the reactor. Therefore, the contention is rejected as vague and without basis.
Contention 8 SMP asserts that the likelihood and possible consequences of a loss of cooling capacity have not been adequately considered. Both the 5/
See p.5 1 2
. Staff and the Licensee state that particular accident scenarios should not be litigated in this proceeding. We agree.
SMP has not supplied any basis for a contention that the proposed modifications to the spent fuel pool would increase the likelihood of any accident. The likelihood of an accident is not within the jurisdiction of this Board other than as it relates to the proposed license amendment.
The Licensee suggests that this contention is admissible to the extent it raises the issue of whether consequences of an accident have been adequately considered in light of an expanded spent fuel pool capacity.
Because we recognize that the consequences of an accident might be greater when more spent fuel is stored in the pool, we admit the contention as it relates to consequences of accidents.
The Board has rewritten this contention as follows:
The effect that an expanded spent fuel pool capacity would have on the consequences of an accident affecting spent fuel pool performance has not been analyzed sufficiently to permit the required " reasonable assurance" and "not inimical" findings to be made.
Contention 9 This contention asserts that the Licensee has not adequately analyzed the impact of its proposed modifications on the coolant flow characteristics in the spent fuel pool. The Staff believes this i
contention is admissible. The Licensee also apparently believes this contention to be admissible and suggests it be reworded to state:
~
l The design of the new racks will not preclude
(
localized boiling.
SMP does not object to this wording.
The Board admits the contention as reworded.
. Contention 10 In Contention 10, SMP a,sserts that increased generation of heat and radioactivity in the spent fuel oool may cause materials deterioration.
The Staff, citing decisions in North Anna, 11 NRC 451, and Salem, 14 NRC 43, argues that there is no basis for the contention.
Both of those cases, however, were decisions on the merits. At this stage in the proceedings, we may not consider the merits of the proposed contention.
See Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 216 (1974). Therefore, we may not rely on the Salem and North Anna findings to assert this contention is without basis.
The licensee believes that contention 10 is admissible.
It proposes it be reworded to state:
The d/r/c schemeb will result in the failure of materials because of increased heat and radioactivity to the extent that there is no reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will not be endangered.
SMP does not object to the rewording. The Board admits this contention as reworded.
Conte'ntion 11 In Contention 11, SMP alleges that the Licensee has not provided sufficient assurance that a large earthquake will not have adverse effects A
"d/r/c scheme" is an abreviation for Applicants' proposed
" disassembly / reassembly / compaction scheme".
. on the spent fuel pool as modified.
Both the Staff and the Licensee object to relitigating the ability of the plant as originally designed to withstand seismic events in the area.
They agree, however, that a contention focusing on the effect that additional weight in the spent fuel pool wnuld have on the pool's ability to withstand earthquakes would be admissible.
The Licensee suggests that the contention would be admissible if it stated:
~
The spent fuel pool will when fully loaded not comply with Class I seismic design criteria for MYAPS.
The Board agrees that Contention 11 is admissible only to the extent it relates to the effect the spent fuel pool modification may have on the ability of the spent fuel pool to withstand earthquakes which the plant is designed to withstand.
The Board has rewritten the contention to state:
The spent fuel pool, when fully loaded or in any other configuration now contemplated, will not comply with Class I seismic design criteria for MYAPS.
As so phrased, the contention is admitted.
I Contention 12 In this contention, SMP asserts that the Licensee has not provided adequate assurance that the spent fuel pool could withstand an aircraft crash.
Both the Licensee and the Staff object, in that this matter was litigated at the operating license stage and should not be relitigated here. The Staff adds that there is no basis for the supposition that an
' aircraft might crash into the spent fuel pool.
i
' The Board agrees that this proceeding is not an opportunity to relitigate matters which were considered in the operating license proceeding.
SMP has not provided any information indicating that the modifications to the spent fuel pool would increase the pool's vulnerability to damage from an aircraf t crash.
Therefore, no basis has been shown for consideration of this contention in a proceeding concerning
~
the proposed modifications.
Because the Board's jurisdiction is limited to issues-which are related to the modifications, this contention is
~ rejected as lacking basis.
The basis SMP provides for this contention is that aircraf t are
,s larger and f aster than they were at the time of the operating license proceeding.
This clearly is not related to the proposed modifications, but challenges the continued applicability of findings made at the operating license stage. The proper procedure for such challenges is a request for a show'hause order under 10 C.F.R. s 2.206, rather than raising a contention in a proceeding such as this one.
Contention 13_
5MP asserts in Contention 13 that the consequences of an accident involving the dropping of a fuel assembly or fuel cask into the pool have not been considered sufficiently.
Both the Staff and the Licensee believe this contention is admissible insof ar as it relates to dropped fuel assemblies.
Both object to it insof ar as it relates to dropped fuel casks because there is no plan to use spent fuel shipping casks at Maine Yankee until shipment off-site is permitted.
n j
w-p*-y..
,e_v-mm a
y*m
. The Board admits this contention as it relates to botn spent fuel assemblies and spent fuel shipping casks. An accident of this nature may always be considered in an operating license proceeding. The Board notes that the higher concentration of spent fuel in the pool may affect the consequences of an accident. Thus, there is a basis for its reconsideration in this proceeding.
Moreover, the Board believes that consideration of a cask drop accident is appropriate at this time. The Licensee apparently does contemplate the use of spent fuel shipping casks in the future and avers the safe use of such casks will be considered when their use is more inminent. The Board notes, however, that measures for minimizing the consequences of such an accident may be more readily implemented now, before the pool may be loaded with larger amounts of spent fuel. This is facilitated by our present consideration of the possible accident.
Contention 14 In essence, this contention asserts that there has been inadequate consideration of the costs of maintaining and operating the pool after the plant's operating license expires. As the Staff and the Licensee point out, the Appeal Board has held that a Licensing Board may not consider the effects of long-term storage or spent fuel on-site beyond the expiration l
of the plant's operating license.
Salem, 14 NRC at 68-69.
Such a l
contention is an inadmissible challenge to the Commission's " Waste Confidence" rulemaking.
In addition, there is no basis for SMP's a
supposition that the pool will be maintained after expiration of the operating license.
Contention 14 is, therefore, rejected, i
I
l
. Contention 15 In this contention, SMP asserts that the License has not demonstrated that it is financially qualified to decommission the plant.
As both the Licensee and the Staff point out, it was found when the operating license was issued that the Licensee was financially qualified to decommission the plant. There is no basis for relitigating this finding now.
No showing has been made how the modifications to the spent fuel pool could affect this.
For these reasons, the Board rejects this contention.
SMP is, of course, free to file, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, a request for action on this matter.
Contention 16 In Contention 16, SMP asserts that the Licensee has not demonstrated that the fuel pool will not go critical.
Both the Licensee and the Staff believe that this contention is admissible. The Board interprets the first paragraph to be the actual contention and the following paragraph to to provide its basis.
The Board, therefore, admits the first paragraph as rewritten by the Board as a contention.
Contention 17 SMP maintains in this contention that the Licensee has not shown that it is technically qualified to perform the proposed pi,n compaction operation.
The Licensee believes that this contention is admissible.
The Staff,' believing that it lacks basis, opposes it.
The Board believes that the second paragraph provides basis for the contention which the Board believes is stated in the first paragraph of
, SMP's Contention 17. The Board, therefore, admits the first and second paragraph of Contention 17.
i The Board notes that the final paragraph of this contention discusses i
disposal of fuel assemblies.
This appears to be an allegation that there will not be off-site storage available for such disposal.
This is a challenge to the " Waste Confidence" rulemaking, and may not be considered in this proceeding.
See Salem,14 NRC at 68-69.
Contention 18 Contention 18, in essence, questions the adequacy of the Licensee's emergency plans.
This contention is without basis.
SMP claims that the modification of the spent fuel pool would increase the consequences of an j
accident and increase the need for prompt evacuation.
However, NRC regulationsE/ require the same type of emergency planning regardless of the seriousness of the accident.
Thus, even assuming that an accident after spent fuel pool modification would have more serious consequences, the emergency plan which was adequate when the operating license was issued would still satisfy regulatory requirements.
Since the adequacy of the emergency plans is not related to the proposed amendment, this contention is rejected.
If SMP wishes to raise the issue of the adequacy of the emergency plans,-it is, of course, free to do so through a petition
~
filed under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206.
E/
10 CFR'50, Appendix E
. III The State of Maine has also filed a number of contentions in this proceeding.
Because at least one of the contentions is admissible, the State will be a party to these proceedings.
Our rulings on the individual contentions follow.
Contention 1 Contention 1 includes four subcontentions each stating a reason why an EIS is requirea. As we discussed in relation to SMP's Contention 1, a contention that an EIS is required is premature at this time. This contentionisthereforerejectedaspremature.5!
Contention 2 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.
Th'e Board finds this contention inadmissible. This contention is so slacking in specificity that the parties are not on notice 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.
5/
See p.5 1 2.
. Contention 3 In this contention, the State asserts that there is no reasonable assurance that use of the cask laydown area for storage of spent fuel will not endanger public health and safety. The Board agrees with the Staff and the Licensee that there is no basis for this contention.
There is no indication how the temporary use of the cask laydown area for storage could endanger the health and safety of the pdblic.
The contention is, therefore, rejected.
Contention 4 The State asserts in Contention 4 that proceedings on the proposed License amendment should be deferred until after the " Waste Confidence" proceedings are completed.
The Staff asserts that this is an issue outside the scope of this proceeding. The Licensee argued that it has been held that a proceeding such as this should not be deferred pending completion of the" Waste Confidence" proceeding.
The Board rejects this contention. The Commission has stated that r
licensing practices need not be changed during the " Waste Confidence" rulemaking. 44 Fed. Reg. 45362(1979).
Deferring this proceeding would be inconsistent with-Commission policy. The State argues that the l
Commission has not absolutely prohibited a delay of the type sought.
However, we believe that the Commission has, at a minimum, provided strong
.i guidance against it.
Nor can the State show any regulatory requirement for such a postponement.
Therefore, we find no basis for that contention.
1
~
. Contention 5 The State maintains that alternatives to the proposed amendments have not been analyzed.
Both the' Staff and the Licensee oppose admission of this contention stating it is without basis. The Licensee goes further and claims that consideration of alternatives is never required for a spent fuel pool expansion.
The Board notes that this contention is similar to SMP's Contention 4
For the reasons set forth in our discussion of that SMP contention, we rejectthiscontentionaspremature.U Contention 6 In Contention 6, the State asserts that the Licensee has not demonstrated a need for the pin compaction procedures.
Both the Staff and Licensee believe this contention should be rejected. As we discussed in connection with SMP's Contention 2, there is no regulatory requirement that the Licensee show an immediate or any need for an amendment.
Therefore, this contention is not admitted.
Contention 7 In Contention 7, the State asserts that the proposed changes will not assure that K-effective will remain below 0.95.
Both the Licensee and the Staff state that the contention as phrased does not pose a litigable issue.
The Board notes that the issue sought to be raised by this contention is essentially the same issue raised in SMP's Contention 16
,hich both the Licensee and the Staff felt was admissible. The Board w
admits this contention as rewritten below:
U See p.5 1 2
. The Licensee has not demonstrated that the spent fuel storage pool, containing irradiated fuel assemblies as proposed, will not go critical, leading to a major release of radiation and radioactivity.
The health and safety of the public and plant workers is therefore not assured.
Contention 8 This contention states that, " Swelling of the rack walls, resulting from boral corrosion, will produce a release o'f radiation in excess of i
standards and will prevent removal of spent fuel assemblies." Both the Licensee and the Staff believe this contention does not satisfy the requirements of basis and specificity. The Board has had some difficulty understanding what swelling is being alleged.
Moreover, there is no basis for the claim that the boral can become corroded and that swelling could result from this. This contention, therefore, is without basis and is rejected.
Contention 9 Both the Licensee and the Staff believe Contention 9, which alleges there will not be sufficient coolant flow to avoid localized boiling, is admissible. The Board agrees it is admissible, but rewords and simplifies it to state:
The design of the new racks will not preclude localized boiling.
Contention 10 The State asserts that the Licensee has not evaluated the 2
consequences of an accidental drop of a spent fuel shipping cask.
This contention is similar to SMP's Contention 13 and the Staff and the Licensee object to it for the reasons they objected to SMP's contention.
7
. As we discussed in relation to that contention, we find that it is' admissible.
Contention 11 In Contention 11, the State asserts that because the Licensee has f ailed to provide specific procedures at this time, it has not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed storage will not endanger public health and safety.
Both the Staff and the Licensee believe that this contention should be rejected as lacking specificity.
The Board, finding that this contention is similar to SMP's Contention 3, rejects it for the reasons discussed in connection with that contention.E/
Contention 12 This contention alleges that hRC regulations concerning monitoring procedures will not be complied with. The Licensee and the Staff assert that this contention is too vague to be admissible. The Board agrees it lacks specificity about which monitoring procedures are being questioned.
The contention is rejected.
Contention 13 In this contention, the State maintains that Appendix A to part 50 wi.ll not be complied with in regard to normal and postulated accident conditions. The Staff opposes this contention as lacking basis.
The Licensee believes that this matter was litigated in the operating license proceeding and should not be relitigated here.
The Board finds this contention vague in that the parts of Appendix A f
which concern the State are not specified.
The contention is, therefore, rejected as lacking specificity.
E/ See p.5 t 2
22 -
Contention 14 In this contention, the State asserts that there is no assurance that occupational exposures will be kept within NRC regulatory limits.
As the Staff and the Licensee both note, this is similar to SMP's Contention 5 which was previously admitted. The Board admits this contention after rewording it to state:
The Licensee has failed to demonstra'te that occupational exposures resulting from its proposed d/r/c scheme will be kept within NRC regulatory limits including ALARA.
Contention 15 The State asserts that there is no assurance that the integrity of the spent fuel pool walls and floor would he maintained during seismic disturbances.
Both the Staff and the Licensee believe this contention to be admissible if slightly modified.
The Board recognizes that this contention is similar to SMP's contention 11.
For the reasons set forth in the Board's discussion of that contention, the Board rewords this contention to state:
The spent fuel pool, when fully loaded or in any other configuration now contemplated, will not comply with Class I seismic criteria for MYAPS.
The Contention is admitted.
Contention 16 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 than to boldly assert that they do so.
This is not a sufficient basis for the contention, and it is rejected.
. IV The following contentions, renumbered by the Board are admitted:
SMP 1:
Applicant has f ailed to demonstrate that occupational exposures resulting from its proposed d/r/c scheme will be kept within NRC regulatory limits including ALARA.
Workers will receive more than allowable dosages from increased handling of denser fuel assemblies. This contention refers to the handling of normal as well as leaking or damaged fuel pins during disassembly and reassembly, and to the end of the licensed period, 2008.
SMP 2:
There is no reasonable assurance that normal operation.
of MYAPS with expanded fuel pool capacity will be carried out in compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 20.
SMP 3:
The effect that expanded spent fuel pool capacity would have on the consequences of an accident affecting spent fuel pool performance has not been analyzed sufficiently to permit the required " reasonable assurance" and "not inimical" findings to be made.
SMP 4:
The design of the new racks will not preclude localized boiling.
SMP 5:
The d/r/c scheme will result in the failure of materials because of increased heat and radioactivity' to the extent that there is no ret.sonable assurance that the public health and safety will not be endangered.
2
/
a 1
SMP 6:
The spent fuel pool, when fully loaded or in any other configuration now contemplated, will not comply with Class I seismic design criteria for MYAPS, SMP 7:
Applicant has not sufficiently considered or analyzed the consequences of an accident involving the dropping of a fuel assembly or fuel cask in the pool under the conditions created by its d/r/c scheme.
Given the higher concentration of fuel in the spent fuel pool; such accident is more likely to yield a greater generation of heat and radioactivity.
Further, applicant has neither analyzed nor demonstrated the means of protecting against accidents in which dropped spent fuel assemblies or spent fuel casks could be deflected by the edge of the spent fuel pool and into stored fuel.
SMP 8:
The Applicant has not demonstrated that the spent fuel storage pool, containing irradiated fuel assemblies as proposed, will not go critical, leading to a major release of radiation and radioactivity. The health and safety of the public and plant workers is therefore not assured.
SMP 9:
The Applicant has not shown that it is technically qualified to manage the proposed pin storage (pin packing) operating in a manner which protects the public health and safety, as required by 10 C.F.R. 50.34 The Applicant has nowhere shown that it has the experience or capability to carry out the proposed pin storage operation as outlined in the amended SAR.
The operation required disassembling fuel assemblies and placing the individual rods in guides called fuel spacer grids (" egg crates"). The crated rods are then placed in individual holders within the pool.
The tolerance between the crates and the storage racks is one-eighth-inch on a side.
Because of the narrow tolerance for both storing pins in crates and storing crated pins in racks, and because of the possibility of deformation in the rods, crates and racks, it is possible that some crates and rods cannot be stored in this configuration.
Applicant has not shown what will be done with these " outcasts".
/
o o State 1:
The Licensee has not demonstrated that the spent fuel storage pool,.containing irradiated fuel assemblies as proposed, will not go critical, leading to a major release of radiation and radioactivity.
The health and safety of the public and plant workers is therefore not assured.
State 2:
The design of the new racks will not preclude localized boiling.
State 3:
The Licensee has f ailed to analy7e the consequences of an accidental drop of a shipping cask on the spent fuel pool following reracking and pin compaction.
State 4:
The Licensee has f ailed to demonstrate that occupational exposures resulting from its proposed d/r/c scheme will be kept within NRC regulatory limits including ALARA.
State 5:
The spent fuel pool when fully loaded or in any other configuration now contemplated will not comply with Class I seismic criteria for MYAPS.
2
o
. V ORDER For the foregoing reasons and in consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is, this 12th day of April 1982 ORDERED 1.
That petition for leave to intervene filed by the State of Maine is granted.
2.
Sensible Maine Power's revised contentions 5, 6(a), 8, 5, 10, 11, 13, 16 and 17 are admitted as renumbered contentions No. 1 through 9.
SMP's revised contentions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6(b), 6(c), 7, 12, 14, 15 and 18 are rejected.
3.
The State of Maine's revised contentions 7, 9, 10, 14, and 15 are admitted as renumbered contentions No. 1 through 5.
The State's contentions 1(a),1(b),1(c),1(d),2,3,4,5,6,8,11,12,13 and 16 are rejected.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Rduf7n. fad Robert M. Lazo, ChairIndng ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
.