ML20128K275

Answer of Yae to Citizens Awareness Network & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Motion for Leave to Reply to Yae Reply Memorandum (Summary Dipostion).* Licensee Believes Ruling Was Sound Discretion of Board.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20128K275
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	09/16/1996
From:	Dignan T ROPES & GRAY, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#496-17937 DCOM, NUDOCS 9610110021
Download: ML20128K275 (5)

Text

,

, . \

/ 7% 7 l

/ 4 3 S UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION om e before the SEP f 9199S  ;

DocxETwo a ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD @ 857 q,  ;

1. / 6 01

)

In the Matter of ) .

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY, ) Docket No.50-029 ' NO M

) ,

I (Yankee Nuclear Power Station) . )

)

l l

ANSWER OF YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY '

l i

TO CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK'S AND NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO YAEC'S REPLY MEMORANDUM (

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION)

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Q 2.730(c), Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC), the licensee herein, hereby replies to Citizens Awareness Network's and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Motion for Leave to Reoly to YAEC's Reply memorandum (Summary Disposition) as follows:

YAEC leaves to the informed discretion of the Board the question of whether to allow the Motion and accept into the record the documents proffered thereunder. YAEC, however, wishes to draw the Board's attention to the following as it exercises its discretion. ,

The motion and its accompanying documents are filed in direct violation of the rules laid down by the Board in LBP-96-15. Therein the Board stated that:

" Replies (other than the summary disposition filing described in section III.B above) are not permitted without prior approval of the Board. Board preapproval regarding . . . leave to reply must 9610110021 960916 PDR ADCCK 05000029 g PDR j

-.,-hasi- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _

be sought in writing at least twenty-four hours before filing the motion or pleading."2 The summary disposition filing referred to in the above-quoted language is the reply opportunity afforded the Staff and Licensee to any responsive motions or cross-filings - it is not a general absolution for all replies in the summary disposition phase of the case. Thus the ,

pleading is unauthorized.

The Board might also consider whether a further affidavit of Dr. Resnikoff is a useful l

addition to the record. Any doubt as to the fragility of his understanding of what is before the l

Board is removed by such things as his apparent belief that " carbon dioxide blasting," " hydro j blasting," and " abrasive blasting" as well as ~scabbling," "spalling," and " scarifying" involve l

the use of, or produce results similar to, explosives;2 his claim that information that Mr.

Mellor refers to as being found in Exhibit 6 to Mr. Mellor's September 3,1996 affidavit is i

actually in Exhibit 5 when, in fact, it is in Exhibit 6;3 and the fact that he does not

" understand" paragraph 4 of the Mellor September 13,1996 affidavit which clearly sets forth why a comparison Dr. Resnikoff had previously made was invalid.

In any event, the fundamental point that Yankee is making is that if the standard for acceptability for approving the Yankee decommissioning plan is the difference between DECON and SAFSTOR as found in the GEIS of 900 person-rem, then the factors that went into the DECON and SAFSTOR estimate should be the same when Yankee computes its difference. If one were to do that one would calculate a difference of 823 person rem; well below the threshold

'LBP-96-15 (Slip Op.) at 62-63.

Second Reply Afpdavit of Manin Resnikoff, Ph.D at 115.

SId. at i 12.

l of 900 even using Dr. Resnikoff's own estimates of future exposure which we do not contest for this purpose. Even if O&M and inhalation were included, the number would rise to 864. This is, once again, below the threshold value of 900.

If one were to take Yankee's estimate of the total projected exposure even conceding some of the additions that Resnikoff suggests, Yankee's calculated difference between DECON and .

SAFSTOR is shown in the following table:

CAN - Mellor Accept 1

Direct Gamma TLD Correction 25 25 DECON 1992 94 94 473 439 473 (Includes O&M) 400 91 91(No basis for average) l Inhalation 7 7 l Hot Particle No guess i Transportation 103 7 10 (GEIS excludes public)

Fuel Transfer 41 41 41 j Contaminated Soil No guess .2 (from GEIS)

Totals 1184 579 741.2 Subtract SAFSTOR 186 186 186 (CAN's No.)

Total (DECON-SAFSTOR) 998 393 555.2 Thus, under any realistic projection of"to go" dose comparing what is in the GEIS and including what CAN suggests in terms of what might be considered decommissioning, there is no credible scenario that will exceed 900 person rem. Even CAN's attempt to stretch the numbers barely

+ l 1 I i

l i

! I i exceeds the threshold value.

l l

CONCLUSION  ;

i j YAEC believes the ruling on the Motion at bar is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the Board.

l l Respectfully submitted, i

1 l

4 W -

l

.m j - Tiiomas G. Dignan, Jr. I

< R. K. Gad III l Ropes & Gray I One International Place j Boston, MA 02110-2624

! (617) 951-7000 i l Counselfor the Licensee j i -

Dated

September 16,1996 t

, 1 1

d l

4 i

j i o

4

?

a

4

'b S 4

1 &;. 0004GT D J CERTIFICATE OF S'ERVICE 6 3 .: Q I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., one of the attorneys for Yankee Atomic Electric Co ,doNrSb) 9 $90 3&

h certify that on September 18,1996, I served the within pleading in this matter by United . at MgKETD well, where indicated, by facsimile transmission) as follows: @ w$ f q>

Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner // b U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 01 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Greta J. Dicus, Commissioner Dr. Nils Diaz, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 .

Edward McGaffigan, Jr., Commissioner Jonathan M. Block, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Main Street Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

Post Office Box 566 Putney, Vermont 05346 FAX: 802-387-2667 G. Paul Bollwerk m, Esquire, Chairman Leslie B. Greer, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Office of the Attorney General U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trial Division Washington, D.C. 20555 200 Portland Street FAX: 301415-5599 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 FAX: 617-727-3076 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Franklin County Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Courthouse-425 Main Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Greenfield, Massachusetts 01301 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission FAX: 413-774-3169 Washington, D.C. 20555 FAX: 301-415-5599 Dr. Thomas S. Elleman Eugene J. Holler, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the General Counsel 704 Davidson Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 Washington, D.C. 20555 FAX: 919-782-7975 FAX: 301-415-3725 Diane Curran, Esquire Office of the Secretary Harmon, Curran, Gallagher & Spielberg U. S. Nuclear wgulatory Commission 2001 S Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20009 FAX: 301-415-1672 FAX: 202-328-6918 Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

~

s T4rdnias G6Dign'an, Jr.