ML20151W647
| ML20151W647 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1988 |
| From: | Ferster A HARMON & WEISS, MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#388-6937 OLA, NUDOCS 8808250068 | |
| Download: ML20151W647 (11) | |
Text
,
~
l [N 7 DOCKETED August 15, 1988 UWRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 88 t,0G 17 P3 :21 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDgg p ~
00C?.Ei Mi '
- .. n,,,
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear
)
Power Corporation
)
. Docket No. 50-271-OLA
)
(Spent Fuel Pool)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear
)
Power Station)
)
)
JOINT MOTION OF NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE-FILED CONTENTIONS Introduction On July 25, 1988,.the NRC Staff issued an environmental assessment of the Licensee's proposed amendment to expand its spent fuel pool storage capacity, and which concluded that the proposed amendment would have no significant radiologicra or non-radiological impacts and no significant impact on the quality-of the human environment.- Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 (a), and this Licensing Board's Prehearing Conference. Order in LBP-87-17, 25.NRC 862 (1987), the New. England Coalition on Nuclear Pol-lution (NECNP) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.(hereinafter referred to as "Intervenors") respectfully move that this Board admit the following late-filed contentions:
-Contention 1 The Environmental Assessment prepared by the Staff'fa'ils to
' consider the consequences and risks posed by the proposed amend-4 ment of a hypothesized accident which would be greater _than those 8808250060 8808] "
[k PDR ADOCK 050 Q
t..~
-2 previously evaluated in connection with the Vermont Yankee reac-tor.
A self-sustaining fuel cladding fire in a spent fuel pool with high density racking could be caused by an accident which involves substantial fuel damage without full core melt, if hydrogen leaks to the reactor building.
This is within the design basis for fuel damage.
This risk is sufficient to con-stitute the proposed amendment as a "major federal action sig-nificantly affecting the environment" requiring the preparation and issuance of an Environmental Impact Statement prior to approval of the amendment.
Basis The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement detailing, inter alia, the environmental impact of the proposal and considering alternatives, for any "major federal action significantly affect-ing the quality of the human environment." 42 U.S.C. S 4332(C).
The proposed amendment, which would substantially increase the risk to public health and safety associated with operation of the Vermont Yankee Plant, is such an action.
The NRC has not prepared an environmental impact statement, as required by law and by 10 C.F.R.
S S 51.20.
The Environmental Assessment prepared by the NRC incorrectly concludes that no environmental impact statement is required, based on a failure to consider significant environmental hazards posed by the proposed amendment: a self-sustaining cladding fire.
According to NUREG/CR-4982, "Severe Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools
. in Support of Generic Safety Issue 82," Brookhaven National Laboratory (July 1987), one postulated event initiating a severe accident in a spent fuel pool storage pool includes pool heatup l
due to loss of cooling water circulation capability, resulting in a self-sustaining oxidation of the Zircaloy cladding (i.e.
a cladding fire) or a cladding rupture.
A self-sustaining fuel cladding fire in a spent fuel pool with high density racking could be caused by an accident which involves substantial fuel damage without full core melt, if hydrogen leaks to the reactor building.
See NUREG-1150, Reactor Risk Reference Document, Draft for Comment, Feb, 1987, at 4-34 and 4-35.
This is within the design basis for fuel damage, and could result in severe long-term health effects (i.e. person-rem).
Contention 2 The Environmental Assessment prepared by the Staff fails to consider adequately the consequences and risks posed by the pro-posed amendment of increased worker exposure to radiation result-ing from the proposed amendment.
This risk is sufficient to con-stitute the proposed amendment as a "major federal action sig-nificantly affecting the environment" requiring the preparation and issuance of an Environmental Impact Statement prior to approval of the amendment.
Basis The basis for Contention 1 is reasserted herein.
The Staff environmental assessment does not provide an adequate scientific basis to assess occupational risk resulting from the proposed
. amendment.
The environmental assessment does not state the num-ber of workers who will be exposed as a result of the proposed amendment.
The environmental assessment postulates a 33-person rem dose coal, but fails to provide any data to support its hypothesis that the dosage will not exceed that amount.
A number of events could occur during the re-racking process that could increase the collective person-rem dose, such as if a worker breaches his or her protective garments, or drops a rack.
Workers could be exposed to isotopes other than Krypton-85 from leaking rods.
Worker exposure to the heavily radioactive gamma rays could result if the Purification filter does not work, and releases gamma rays to the pool.
The increase in the collective person-rem dose if any of these events occur could result in an occupational risk constituting a significant radiological impact.
Contention 3 The NRC has failed to give adequate consideration to the alternative of dry cask storage, and has thus not complied with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, nor of its own rules in 10 C.F.R. Part 51.
Basis The bases for Contentions 1 - 3 are reasserted herein.
Sec-tion 102 (2) (E) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C.
S 4332(E), and NRC regulations, 10 C.F.R.
$ 51.30(a) (ii) and (ii), require an environmental assessment to consider such alternatives to the proposed action as may partially or completely meet the proposal's goal.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Callaway, 524 F.2d 79, 93 (2nd
. Cir. 1975).
The Staff's consideration of the alternatives of dry cask storage -- called "independent spent fuel storage installa-tion" -- is wholly inadequate.
The sole reason stated by the Staff for its failure to consider this alternative is that
"[t]here is little likelihood" that the design, construction, or NRC review of this new storage facility would be completed in sufficient time to meet Vermont Yankee's need for additional capacity.
The Staff has rejected an admittedly environmentally accept-able alternative because it may cause an operational inconvenience to the Licensee.
The Licensee's asserted need for storage capacity in the near term (more tnan two years after the initial license amendment applicaton was filed) nay not be used to foreclose an environmentally-preferable alternative, particu-larly where the urgency is attributable to the Staff's own fail-ure to issue an environmental assessment in a timely fashion, and the delays caused by the Licenses's failure to recognize that it has a spent fuel pool cooling system that does not meet even the current applicable safety standards.
In any event, no effort is made by the Environmental Assessment to explain why dry cask storage could not be implemented in sufficient time to. meet Ver-mont Yankee's need for additional capacity.
E g
_,v
- mp -
i 0
0 ARGUMENT l
l
'1 2
. B.
Intervenors Has Satisfied the Criteria for Admission of a Late-Filed Contention The criteria for admission of late-filed contentions, set out in 10 CFR 2.714 (a) (1) (1-v), require a balancing of the fol-lowing factors: (i) good cause, if any, for failure to file on time; (ii) the availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected; (iii) the extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record; (iv) the extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties; (v) the extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
Intervenors, on balance, satisfy these criteria.
1.
Intervenors Have Good Cause for the Late Filing First, Intervenors clearly have "good cause" for their fail-ure to file these environmental contentions on time.
Intervenors proposed these contentions in a timely manner, in response to the NRC's notice of opportunity for hearing on the proposed License Amendment, and inviting intervention requests.1 At that time, the NRC had yet to prepare any environmental assessment required under NEPA and the NRC's regulations.
Nonetheless, Intervenors proposed several environmental contentions based on the failure of the NRC to prepare an environmental impact statement on the proposed amendment, noting that these contentions would be sub-WO
,C 1
51 Ee_cl. Be.g. 47324.
e
. ject to change at such time that NEPA-related documents are issued by NRC.
On appeal, however, these environmental conten-2 tions were disallowed by the Appeal Board as "premature.n In so ruling, the Appeal Board invited the present submission, stat-ing "intervenors must await the issuance of the staff's environ-mental assessment and, then if dissatisfied with its considera-tion of alternatives, formulate promptly an appropriate conten-tion in accordance with the Commission's regulations for late-filed contentions, 10 C.F.R.
S 2. 714 (a) (1). " ALAB -869, slig ooinion, at 34.
As this Licensing Board recognized,3 to now dis-allow these environmental contentions would place Intervenors in a "procedural quagmire," by now rejecting the contentions as late-filed, and would deprive Intervenors if their hearing rights due to delays not of its own making.
It would also encourage the NRC to delay the issuance of environmental documents in the hopes of thereby insulating these documents from public review in an adjudicatory proceeding.
2.
There Are No Other Means By Which Intervenors' Interests Will Be Protected There is no other means to protect Intervenors' -- or the pub-lic's -- interests in the safety of the Vermont Yankee plant, than to have a thorough airing of the environmental assessment.
The Staff admits that its environmental assessment does not 2
ALAB-869.
3 LBP-87-17, at 29.
_g_
include any "generic assessment for the dry cask alternative storage."
The Staff notes as well that assessments for dry cask storage made at other plants show that this option is "environ-mentally acceptable."
Yet it declines to evaluate this alterna-tive because of the posuibility that it may not be implemented in sufficient time to satisfy the Licensee's need for storage capac-ity.
Admission of a contention challenging the consideration of alternatives contained in the NRC's environmental assessment is the only means of ensuring that this admittedly environmentally acceptable alternative is given its due consideration.
Moreover, the fatal failure of the environmental assessment to consider the risk of a self-sustaining cladding fire directly implicates the safety of the plant, and has not been directly considered by the Licensing Board.
Therefore, admission of this new contention is the only means of adequately resolving it.
3.
Thore are No Other Parties to Represent this Interest.
Admission of these new contentions would not be repetitive or duplicative and Intervenors' interests could not be represented by other parties, as no other parties have raised these issues.
4.
Admission of these Contentions Will Not Delay the Proceeding.
Admission of these contentions will not unduly broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
As noted above, any delay in the process is directly attributable to the Licensee's own failure to recognize that it has a spent fuel pool cooling system that does l
\\
. not meet the current standards for single failure criterion, and to the Staff's failure to issue its environmental assessment in a timely fashion.
Moreover, since there is still no Staff Safety Evaluation Report for the proposed amendment, the proceeding has been delayed for months.
Admission of these contentions will not affect the schedule.
III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Intervenors have satisfied the criteria for admission of a late-filed contention.
Accordingly, the Boat;d should grant this motions.
Respectfully submitted, bb
/*'
"Mfg Andrea Ferster HARMON & WEISS 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D. C.,
20009 (202) 328-3500
o g g, U Mt:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 15, 1988, copies of the f*@$edW497 P3 :21 pleading were served by first-class mail, or as otherwise indi-cated, on all parties listed below.
0H it t t,
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman
((}pfpf 1
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Glenn O.
Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Secretary of the Commission Attn:
Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Christine N.
Kohl, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 George Dean, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 David J. Mullett, Esq.
Vermont Department of Public Service 120 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 Ann Hodgdon, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Bethesda U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Diana Sidebotham R.F.D.
- 2 Putney, Vermont 05346
i e R.K Gad III **
Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Gary J.
Edles Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board I
I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Geoffrey M. Huntington, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General Environmental Protection Agency State House Annex l
25 Capitol Street l
Concord, NH 03301-6397 l
l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 1
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f '^
l Washington, D.C.
20555 l
t
[
g l
Andrea Ferster l
- Sent by FAX transmission l
l l
l
.-m__.m.
.m.
_._.__