ML20101N661
| ML20101N661 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1992 |
| From: | Reynolds N NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., WINSTON & STRAWN |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20101N649 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9207100096 | |
| Download: ML20101N661 (19) | |
Text
_
ENCt.05URE 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BtroRE THE NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CO)DtIEEION i
In the Hatter of HORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY Co.
Docket No. 50-336 h
(N111 stone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2)
LICENSEE NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY'S REPLY TO REQUESTS FOR HEARING AND PETITIONS TO INTERVINE BY M.E. MARUCCI AND EARTHVISION. IWC, In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(c), Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ("NNECC"), hereby files its reply to two requests for a hearing and petitions to intervene submitted in response to an opportunity for Hearing published in the Federal Register on April 28, 1992 (57 Tod. Reg. 17,934) regarding a proposed ~ license amendment.
Each of the two petitioners filed petitions requesting a hearing; however, neither of the petitioners meets the standards set forth in the notice or the requirements of 10 C.T.R. 5 2.714.
Therefore, NNECO requests that the requests for a hearing and petitions to intervene be denied.
II.
BACKGROUND on April 16, 1992, NNEco proposed a Technical Specification revision tc govern its use of the spent fuel pool at Millstone Unit No. 2 (" Unit 2").
On April. 28,-1992, the Staff proposed to determine that the amendment request involves no significant Dh hjg8 esa
hazards consideration, and (consistent with 10 C.T.R. 55 2.105 and 50.91) published a notice of opportunity for Hearing.V The notice required that written requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 be filed by May 2s, 1992.
In response to the notice, two persons filed individual requests for a hearing and petitions to intervene with the Commission:
M.E. Harucci and Earthvision, Inc. (by P.R.
Novicki).
On June 4, 1992, the Staff made a final ho significant hazards consideration finding and issued the requested Technical specification amendment in accordance with 10 C.F.R.
S 50.91(a) (4).
NNECO is filing this Response to the ah,7e-noted requests for herring and petitions to intervene pursuant to 10 C.T.R.
5 2.714(c) which provides that a party to a proceeding may file an answer to a petition to intervene within ten days after service.
Both petitioners served their documents on NNECO by U.s. Mail postmarked May 29, 1992, service by mail automatically provides NNECO with an additional five days to respond under 10 C.T.R. 5 2.710.
Thus, a timely response would be due June 15, 1992 (which accounts for the due date f alling on a Saturday).
1/
" Northeast Nuclear Energy Co.; consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Tacility operating License, Proposed No g
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and opportunity for Hearing," 57 Ted. Reg. 17,934 (1992).
2 d
____._m_______._
1 III.
EISCUSSION A.
The Recuirements of 10 C.F.R.
E 2.714 I
l The notice of opportunity for hearing requires that "any 4
person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who j
vishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a
(
vritten request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
. in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2."
$7 Tod. Reg.
17,934.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(a):
(1)
Any person whose interest may be affected by i
l a proceeding and who desires to participate as a party shall file a written petition for 1
leave to intervene.
i e
e e
(2)
The petition shall set forth with i
particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why petitioner should be permitted to intervene, with particular reference to the factors in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and the specific aspect or aspects of the subject of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.
Pursuant to 10 C.T.R. $ 2. 714 (d) (1), a petition for leave to intervene must address the following factors:
(1)
The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding.
(2)
The nature and extant of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding.
3
--~-
(3)
The possible effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
These factors relate to a petitioner's standing to intervene.
Judicial concepts of standing will be applied to determine whether a petitioner has sufficient interest in a proceeding to be entitled to intervene as a matter of right.
"These concepts require a showing that (a) the action will cause
' injury in fact,' and (b) the injury is arguably within the ' zone of interests' protected by the statute governed by the proceeding."
Metremolitan Edison commanv. at al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), CLI-8 3-25, 18 NRC 3 27, 332 (1983).
According to the Licensing Board in The Cleveland riectrie-111uninatina connany (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1), L8P-92-4, slip op. at 12 (March 18, 1992):
[T]he asspryed injury must be " distinct and palpableam and "particular -(and) concrete,"LU as opposed to bein
"' con hypothetical, '"!1/ or "jectural.11/. (,)
abstract."
Additionally, there must be a causal nexus between the asserted injury and the challenged action.
30 Warth v. soldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975).
31 United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S.
164, 177 (1974).
33 Los Anaalan v. Lvena, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983).
33 sinon v. Eastern Kv. Welf ara Richtm Oro., _426 U.S.
[26) at 40.
4
i
).
B.
Gaoaranhic Provinity of Ranidance as a Ramia for Standina This proceeding is a 11 canna amendment erocandina within the meaning of Atomic Energy Act 5 189.a. (1) (42 U.S.C. $ 2239).
While residence within fifty miles of a power reactor may support a finding of standing in a full-blown operating license proceeding,1/ there is precedent in license amendment proceedings, where the effects of a hypothetical accident arising from the subject matter of the amendment are relatively small, for application of a shorter geographical distance for purposes of determining standing.
The commission does not allow the (fif ty _ mile) presumption to be applied to all license amendments.
It only does so in those instances involving an obvious potential for offsite consequences.
Lono island Liahtina commanv (Shoreham Nuclear power Station, Unit 1), LBP-91-7, 33 KRC 179, les (1991).
Thus, in one case involving a license amendment to change
~
the paraissible maximum K,,, of the fuel pool from 0.90 to 0.95, the Licensing Board held thatt This case concerns a request for a license amendment and is not controlled by the same standing considerations that govern standing when an' operating license is sought.
Whatever the risk to the surrounding connunity from a reactor and its. associated fuel pool, the risk from the fuel pool alone is less and the ' distance of residence from the pool for which standing would be appropriate would, accordingly, be less.
Consequently, we do not consider residence 43 miles from this plant to be adequate for standing.
2/
Eh11adeichia rieetrie cemeanv (Limerick cenerating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-43A, 15 NRC 1423,- 1433-35 (1982).
5
1
).
12ston Edison commanv (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP j 24, 22 NRC 97, 99 (1985), aff'd on other arounds, ALAB 816, 22
)
NRC 461 (1985).
Thus, the geographic distance to support _ a finding of standing is a function of the potential consequences associated with the matter in issue.
i.
The Board in Pilarin did not find it necessary to comment on how close a residence would need to be to the licensee's facility to confer standing in that matter.
However, the Board did note that it was aware of no scenario that would result in exposure of a resident forty-three miles distant to radiation or radioactive j
releases from the fuel pool.
Moreover, the Board noted that, if 4
j such an accident scenario did exist, the proposed license amendment would not increase the risk to the petitioner from that l
accident.
Thus, the Board applied a two-tiered approach to l
establishing a reasonable distance for determining standing regarding a fuel pool amendment:
Is there an accident scenario 1
involving the fuel pool that could affect the petitioner?
If so, would the proposed amor.daent arguably increase the risk to the i
petitioner?
Under this approach, if either answer vare in the i
negative,-the petitioner does not have sufficient interest in the proceeding to confer standing.
In another case, involving a request for hearing for a l
purely administrative licensing amendment, the Licensing Board denied a petition to intervene because "the instant licensing action has no effect on any of the petitioner's asserted l
6 f
d
e interests in preserving her life, health, livelihood, property or the environment.
(I)njury to individuals living in reasonable proximity to a plant must be based on a shoving of 'a clear potential for offsite consequeness' resulting from the challenged action."
Supra, LBP-92-4, slip op. at 15-16 (March 18, 1992) (citing Florida Power & Licht Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89-21, 30 NRC 325, 329 (1989).)
The petitioner in this case lived within 15 miles of the nuclear power plant.
The Commission in St. Lucia further required that
"(a)bsent situations involving such obvious potential for offsite consequences, a petitioner must allege some specific " injury in fact" that vill result from the action taken.
30 NRC at 329-30.
C.
Standino for Oreanizations An organization "could establish standing to participate either as an organization or as a representative of one or more cembers."
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pever corooration (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBp-87-7, 25 NRC 116, 118 (1987).
In general, to establish organizational standing, the petitioner must demonstrate that the organization itself will be injured, and that the injury is not a generalized grievance shared by all or a large class of citizens.
Ibid.
To establish standing as the representative of members who themselves have an interest in the proceeding, "(r)osidence of at 7
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _
least one member in close proximity to a facility, standing alone, would establish such an interest."
1hidt However, the petitioner must identify the member (s) having the interest and must provide concrete evidence (such as an affidavit) that the cember(s) wishes to be represented by the organization.
- Ibid, Also, the organization must demonstrate that it has authorized a particular representative to represent the organization in the proceeding.
G3.oreia Power Connany (Vogtle Electric Centrating Plants, Units 1 and 2), LBP-90-29, 32 NRC 89, 92 (1990).
u.
M.E. Marucci Does Not Meet the Rectirements for Standina to Intervena An application of the above-stated principles to M.E.
Marucci's letter serving as a request for a hearing and petition to intervene demonstrates that the request and petition should be denied.
M.E. Marucci has not demonstrated an interest in the -
proceeding suf ficient to be granted intervenor status.
M.E. Marucci's petition does not set forth with particularity her interest in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, and the reasons why she should be permitted to intervene.
Therefore, M.E.
l Marucci's interest and the nature of her right to be made a party i
to the proceeding must be based on the distance of her residence from Unit 2 (approximately forty miles).1/
i 1/
Based on the address on M.E. Marucci's petition, NNECO estimates that she resides slightly more than forty, but less than forty-one, miles from Unit 2.
8
4 J
NNECO maintains that M.E. Marucci resides too f ar away from Unit 2 to support a finding of standing.
First, there is no i
{
causal norus between any asserted injury and the license amendment at issue.
No postulated design basis scenario would expose a person over forty miles from Unit 2 to radiation or
{
radioactive releases from the fuel pool that would exceed the variability of background radiation.A/
Moreover, in its no l
significant hazards consideration determination, the NRC Staff i
{
concluded that the Technical Specification amendment in question j
vould not result in (1) a reduction in the margin of safety, (2) the possibility of a new or different kind of accident or (3) a l
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.Il This reflects the fact that the i
i j
1/
Based on NNECO's calculations, the postulated fuel handling and cask drop accidents vould be the most severe fuel pool accidents.
(See Unit 2 FSAR section 14.7.4.3.1 and Table i
14.7.4-1.)
i The total dose for thase accidents is less than 1 millirem at 40 miles, which is less than the variability of background radiation and less than plausible normal operating release dose consequences allowed at the site bour.eary under 10 C.F.R. Part 20 and 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix I.
This dose was calculated by multiplying the Unit 2 FSAR accident doses by a ratio of X/Q for the FSAR accident dose (calculated by Regulatory Guide 1.145 methods i
at distances close to the plant) to a X/Q for the worst case seteorology with G stability (calculated using Regulatory Guide 1.111 methods at a distance of 40 miles).
See the-enclosed affidavit in support of these conclusions.
1/
" Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Amendmant No.158 to Facility operating License No. DPR-65, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, Et A1. Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-336," June 4,_1992, at 5-6.
9
acendacnt sitply iCpas00 additional restrictions on the use of the Unit 2 fuel pool.
Thus, even if an accident scenario existed prior to the amendment which could affect a resident at a distance of 40 miles, the proposed license amendment would not increase the risk to the resident from such an accident.
For the reasons that no design basis fuel pool accident scenario could aff ct M.E. Marucci at a distance forty miles from Unit 2, and that the amendment in question would not have an ef f ect on the risk to M.E. Marucci from any accident, M.E.
Marucci does not have standing to intervene.
E.
EARTHVISION, Inc., Does Not Meet the Recuirements for Standina to Intervena An application of the above-stated principles to EARTNVISION's lek..r request fc; a hearing and petition -to intervene demonstrates that the request and petition should be denied.
EARTHVISION, as represented by P.R. Novicki, has not demonstrated an interest in the proceeding sufficient to be granted intervenor status.
EARTHVISION's petition does not set forth.with particularity its interest in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, and the reasons why EARTKVISION should be permitted to intervene.
The petition merely requests a hearing as being "in the best interest of both Northeast Utilities 11 Enl1 ga the welfare'of the citArens-in this area.
Therefore, EARTHVISION's interest and the nature of 10
its right to be made a party to the proceeding is based on the distance of P.R. Novicki's residence from Unit 2 (approximately forty miles).U maintains that P.R. Novicki resides too far away from NNEco Unit 2 to support a finding of standing.
First, there is no causal nexus between any asserted injury and the license amendment at issue.
As stated above, no postulated design basis scenario would expose a person over 40 miles distant from Unit 2 to radiation or radioactive releases from the spent fuel pool that vould exceed the variability of background radiation.
- Also, as steted above, the NRC Staff's no significant hazards i
consideration analysis for the instant amendment concludes that the amendment vould not result in a reduced margin of safety, the possibility of a new or differeint accident or a significant increase in the probability or consequencas of a previously evaluated accident.
Thus, the proposed license amendment would increase the risk to P.R. Novicki from a fuel pool accident.
not For these reasons, EARTHVISION does not have sufficient interest for standing to intervene.
1/
Based-on the address on P.R. Novicki's petition, NNECO estinates that she resides slightly more than forty, but less than forty-one, miles frou Unit 2.
11 l
IV.
CONCLUSION This license amendment merely increases restrictions on the
)
use of the spent fuel pool and does not result in new accidents or significant increased risk or consequences of accidents.
The a
petitioners reside at too great a distance from Unit 2 to be 1
affected by this amendment.
Neither letter, viewed as a request for hearing and petition j
to intervene, indicates that either petitioner has sufficient interest in this license amendment proceeding to confer standing to intervene as a party.
Therefore, both requests for a hearing and petitions to intervene Sheuld be denied.
I l
Nf"THEA T CLEAR ENERGY Co.
I
?ip@l.
k Nichollsj. Rejmolds 4
WINSTON(a STRA)W, 3
June 11, 1992 ATTORNEYt Folt ORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMP) t 4
4 12
a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0mlSS10N BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPMIS$10N l
In the Matter of NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY Docket No. 50 336 (M111st. a Nuclea! Power Station, Unit 2)
AFFIDAVIT 1.
I, Raymond A. Crandall, being duly sworn, hereby state that I an employed by Northeast Utilities as a Supervisor, Radiological Engineering and am responsible for Radiological Engineering. My business address and phone number are:
P.O. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06141 0270 (203) 665 5863 2.
I received a MSNE from MIT in 1972, and have practiced engineering in the field of Nuclear Engineering for 20 years.
A detailed curriculum vitae is attached.
3.
In my opinion, the total radiation dose to any individual at a distance of about 40 miles from Millstone Unit 2 as a result of a postulated design basis spent fuel pool accident will be less than 1 millires.
This is less than the annual variability of background radiation.
By way of perspective, this postulated dose would also be less than plausible normal operating release dose consequences allowed at the site boundary under 10 CFR, Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1.
4.
My opinion is based on calculations of the effects of a postulated fuel handling accident and a postulated cask drop accident.
Thase are the most limiting design bases fuel pool accidents and are described in Unit 2 FSAR Section 14.7.4.3.1.
The dose resulting from these accidents at 40 miles from Unit 2 was calculated by multiplying the Unit 2 FSAR accident doses by a-ratio of X/Q for the FSAR accident dose (calculated by Regulatory Guide 1.145 methods at distances close to the plant)to a X/Q for the worst case meteorology with G stability (calculated using Regulatory Guide 1.111 methods at a distance of 40 miles).
1
5.
The foregoing statements, including the results of the calculations described above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief,
- b. b2s. Y R4)tond A. Crandall Subscribed and sworn to before ne this N b day of h 1992.
N1fAlJ.fVJ.
'J.
Notary Public My comission expires:
IE bl h JacqueHne A.Griar Notary Public w canmen E.om Dr 31. tr+-
/
-t-
u. :.e.u ven raeii, ueea iaa rM NO. 403 e66 66%
P.02 RESUME
- NAME:
Raymond A. Crandall EM>t0YtR:
Northeast Utilities Service Company TTTLE:
Supervisor, Radiological Engineering Section slRTH DATE:
September 22,1949 E DUCAT 10N: (Chronologicalpast to present) 1967 A. Henninger High School, Syracuse, NY 1971 BS. Physics, Manachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 1972 Cambridge, MAMS. Nuclear Engineering, Mattachusetts institute of Tec WonK txptR1tNCE: (Chronologicalpast to present)
FROM/TO YE ARS JOB TTT1.E COMPANY MSPON5tBILmES 06n2-0605 Health Commonwealth Physics Edison Worked at Dresden Nuclear Power Engineer Station (3 operating units) as a Health Physics Engineer. Responsi-bilities included all aspects of radiological protection including occupational esposure, effluent and process system monitoring emergency planning, shielding, calculat)ons, etc.
0905-02/81 Engineer NU5co corporate engineering position in -
Radiological Assessment. Involved in all aspects of radiation assess-ment assodated with the. opera.
tion of Millstone and CY.
02/81 Present Supervisor, NUSCo Radiological Supervisor of the Radiological Engineerin Engineering rate office.g Section at the Corpo.
Su parvised individuals Secuan in the areas o1 shielding calcula-tions, design basis accident assess-ments, process and effluent systems evaluations, offsite dose assessments environmental mon-
!toring, oc,cupa Al. ARA programs, tion exposure solid radwaste, PRA,et:.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-336
)
(Millstone Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit No. 2)
)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the captioned matter.
In accordance with 10 C.F.R.
5 2.713(b), the following information is provided:
Nicholas S.
Reynolds Name Winston & Stravn Address 1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 Telephone Number Area Code 202-371-5717 Admissions U.S.
Supreme Court Court of Appeals of the D.C.
Circuit Supreme Court of Virginia District of Columbia Court of Appeals Nar:e of the Party Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 107 Selden Street Berlin, Connebticut 06037-0218 Nicholas Re lds Winston &
tr Counsel p r Northeast Nuclear Energy Womps Dated at Washington, District of Columbia this loth day of June, 1992
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION DETORE THE NUCLEAR REGtJLATONY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-336
)
(Millstone Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit No. 2)
)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith g
enters an appearance in the captioned matter.
In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.713(b), the following information is provided:
Name John A. MacEvoy Address Winston & Stravn 5
1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 Telephone Number Area code 202-371-5769 Admissions Supress Court of pennsylvania District of Columbia Court of Appeals Name of the Party Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 107 Selden Street Berlin, Connecticut 06037-0218 0._ hw 1) 1_
Jcfhn A'. Nachvoy Winston & Stra W )
Counsel for Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Dated at Washington, District of Columbia this 10th day of June, 1992
UNITED STATES OF 'MERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY " f4 MISSION BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULW "i Y COMMISSION In the Matter of NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY Co.
Docket No. 50-336 (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2)
QERTIFICATI_QLSERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Reply to Requests for Hearing and Petitions to Intervene by M.E. Marucci and Earthvision, Inc.," dated June 11, 1992, and the accompanying Affidavit y
and Notices of Appearance have been served on this lith day of June, 1992, as followst Secretary of the commission By first class mail U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission original plus 2 copies Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Section-Office of the General Counsel By first class mail U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comuission 1 copy Washington, D.C.
20555 B. Paul Cotter, Jr.
By first class mail Chief Administrative Judge 1 copy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard M. Kacich By first class mail Northeast Utilities
-1 copy P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Mary Ellen Marucci By first class mail 104 Brownell Street 1 copy New Haven, CT 06511
l Patricia R. Novicki By first class mail EARTHVISION, Inc.
1 copy 42 Highland Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Gerald Garfield, Esq.
By first class mail Day, Berry & Howard 1 copy City Place Hartf ord, C"I 06103-3499 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY Co.
- JA1,
~
J A. Mactiroy WINSTON & STRAWW, June 11, 1992 ATPORNEYS FOR NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO.
_ - - _ _ -.- ____ _ __ __ - _