ML20055B523
| ML20055B523 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1982 |
| From: | Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | MAINE, STATE OF |
| References | |
| 80-437-02-LA, 80-437-2-LA, ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8207220454 | |
| Download: ML20055B523 (5) | |
Text
DM, e Jp -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges BERVEL JUL 221982 Robert M. Lazo, Chairman Dr. Peter A. Morris Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
)
In the Matter of:
)
Docket No. 50-309-0LA
)
ASLBP Docket flo. 80-437-02 LA MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY
)
)
July 21, 1982 (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Concerning Petition for Reconsideration Filed by the State of Maine)
On April 30, 1982, the State of Maine filed a petition requesting this Board to reconsider its Order of April 12, 1982 with regard to its rejection of two proposed contentions, numbers 2 and 16. Both the Applicant and the NRC Staff oppose the State's petiton.
Upon careful consideration of the filings, we conclude that (1) the Board properly ruled that both contentions were inadmissible and (2) the State has not set forth in its petition for reconsideration any argument warranting reversal of our earlier ruling.
8207220454 820721 PDR ADOCK 05000309 0
}g g x I.
Discussion A.
Contention No. 2 The State's Contention No. 2 was:
"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 environmental consequences of such a release in the event of a total or partial loss of coolant at the spent fuel pool.
The 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, October 5, 1982, at 7.
The basis given for the contention was an incorporation by reference of the basis given for proposed Contention 1 (a). More specifically, several loss-of-coolant accidents were postulated and it was then asserted the probability of such accidents would be increased by the proposed license amendment. Beyond the mere assertion that they do, the State made no attempt 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 '.he spent fuel pool).
The Board rejected Contention No. 2 stating:
This contention is so lacking 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." Order at 17
-- In its petition for reconsideration, the State does not provide any further basis or explanation which would warrant admitting proposed Contention No. 2.
With respect to the spent fuel pool's ability to withstand sabotage, an airplane accident, a missile, an earthquake, an accident involving the fuel transfer tube, and the drop of a heavy object such as a shipping cask - thus causing "a rapid relase of pool coolant",
all events which the State says could breach the integrity of the pool itself, those have been dealt with at the operating licensing stage and need not be relitigated now.
Further, the State has not explained in a meaningful way the link between the postulated loss-of-coolant accident it cites in its proffered basis and the proposed license amendment. We again find that the contention is so lacking in specificity that the Applicant has not been put on sufficient notice to know what it has to defend or oppose.
B.
Contention No. 16 The State's Contention No. 16 was "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 5,1982, at 20.
As a basis for the 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 must be examined on the record of this proceeding.
A number of specific Tasks that "indirecly affect the proposed spent fuel p'ol expansion" are also cited.
The Board rejected Contention No. 16 by ruling"
...the State has not shown how these natters relate to the spent fuel pool expansion other than to boldly assert that they do so.
This is not a sufficient basis for the contention, and it is rejected." Order at 22.
In its petition, the State asks for reconsideration of this ruling because:
"In light of the Appeals Board decision in Allens Creek and its progeny, the State believes Contention 16 is admissible at this stage of the proceeding.
Although the State need do no more than ' assert' that specific unresolved generic safety issues directly or indirectly affect the proposed expansion of Maine Yankee's spent fuel pool, the State went beyond the requirements of Allens Creek and mentioned the specific aspects of each of the generic unresolved safety issues which were of concern.
We respectfully request on reconsideration that the Board admit Contention 16."
However, it is manifestly evident that the State has not cured the defect in its proposed contention. While the State may have " mentioned the specific aspects of each of the generic unresolved safety issues which were of concern", the State does not even allege, how these
" aspects" relate to the contemplated fuel pool expansion. Accordingly, we reaffirm our previous ruling that no basis for proposed Contention No.
16 has been shown.
O
_3 II.
Order For the foregoing reasons and in consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 21st day of July 1982 ORDERED That the April 30, 1982 petition by Intervenor State of Maine for reconsideration of the Licensing Board's Order of April 12, 1982 with regard to its rejection of Contention Nos. 2 and 16, is denied.
Y W
Robert M. Lazo, Chairm4t ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE t