ML20155A903

NRC Staff Response to Joint Reply of New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution & Commonwealth of Ma.* Late-filed Contentions Should Be Rejected.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20155A903
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	09/30/1988
From:	Hodgdon A NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#488-7207 OLA, NUDOCS 8810060112
Download: ML20155A903 (7)

Text

_____ _ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

1 s07 <

Sept g .15d, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 88 OCT -4 PS:18  :

REFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD L MM , t . d t  ; i.

l In the Matter of f 1

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR Docket No. 50-271-OLA

POWER CORPORATION (Spent Fuel Pool Amendmenti (VermontYankeeNuclearPower )

Station) l NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO "JOINT REPLY OF NEW ENGLAND  ;

COALITI0h ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION AND CO*MONWEALTH '

0F MASSACHUSETTS... " ,

l

. 1. INTRODUCTION t

On September 14, IDE,E,, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution l (NECNP) ard the Cow.onwealth of Massachusetts (Comonwealth) filed a "Joint Reply of New England Coalitier en Nuclear Pollution and

]

l

Comcrwealth of Massachusetts to the Staff and Licensee's Objections to l

Late - Filed Contentions." The filing was rade pursuant to a Licensing  !

i Board order of September 13. 1980, granting NECNP and the Comonwealth's j i t

joint rotion for leave to file a reply. In the same order, the Licensing l .

1 Board authorized the licensee and the hRC staff to file responses. The J

licensee filed its response on September 21, 1988. This constitutes the i 1  !

Staff's respense, j s

II. DISCUSSION .

t A. Environmental Contention 1

] In their reply. NECNP and the Coronwealth correct their reference to i NUREG-1150. Reactor Risk Reference Document, to include page 4-33. They l 1  ?

! I i

1 i 691006011P 080930

) PDR ADOCK 050 1 l

l 3567 l

- - . . - . - - . - . - - - - - _ - - . , . _ , . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ , - _ - . - -_ . _ _ _ ~ . _ . - - . - , . , - - .

, 2 offer this reference in support of their proposed Environmental Contention 1, which they now charteterire as alleging that "the risk associated with a self-sustaining fire in the spent fuel pool, without hypothesizing a bevond-design-basis ever.t. constitutes sufficient potential effect on the environtnent to require preparation of an envirorsental impact statement." (Emphasisadded). Reply at 1-2.

NECNP/Correronwealth state that the reference, NUREG-1150, supports a cenclusion that "when the plant is deinerted, hydrogen detonation and deflagration in the reactor building is a significant risk." Reply at 2-3. NECNP/Cceonwealth ignore the first sentence of the paragraph to which they cite. That sentence reads, "Nitrogen is added to the centainment atmosphere in all Mark 1 plants during normal operation to prevent hydrogen ccebustienjr1anaccident." (Emphasis added). Further, the very first sentence of LUPEG-1150 states, "This report provides the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's draft assessment of severe accident risks for e set of comercial nuclear power plants." (Emphasisadded). NUREG-1150 at xix.

NUREG-1150 concerns severe accidents; the paragraph to which NECNP and the Corconwealth cite concerns severe accidents.

NECNP/Cormerwealth rew state that their proffered contention does not corcern severe accidents; however, they stop s,hert of specifying what the certention does concern. NEChP/Coninonwealth cite to the Vernent Yankee Contaircent Safety Study (August 1986) as authority for their statement that containment is deinerted 1.1 per cent of the tirne the plant is operating. The discussion of deinerting appears in the Centainment Safety Study at page l'.4 in "5.2.4.1. Time When Containrent is Deinerted."

However, in *Section 5.2.4.2, Cer. trol of Oxygen Post-Accident," it it

'

• h

stated that "there are no potential sources of oxygen in the containment sufficient to result in a combustible gas mixture post-accident. In other words, regardless of how large a concentration of hydrogen gas results due to zirconium / rater reaction of a deoraded core, the oxygen will remain below 5% which precludes combustion." 3.at115.

NECNP/Commerwealth have attempted to construct a post-accident i

i scenario while ignoring, indeed disclaiming, the accident that resulted in j the scenario. Simply put, post-accident conditions require an accident to produce them. NECNP/Cenonwealth would have the effects without the accident. The contention is without basist it should not be admitted.

l E. Environmental Contention 2

\

I In their reply, NECNP/ Commonwealth offer a recent IE Information l 1

] Notice, "IN No. 88-65: Inadvertent Drainages of Spent Fuel Pools Aufsst  !

18,1966)," as support for their propcsed Environmental Contention 2. That j contention alleges that the Staff's discussion of occupational dose in its I

j Environmental Assessment is inadequate and that the risk associated with worker exposure is sufficient to trigger the requirement for an EIS. The i Joint Proponents argue that the Information Notice's discussion of three events in tbt past year irvolving pool drainage is evidence that such 1

i events are not remote ar.d speculative but cota nolace and that they have i

i the potential for causing high radiction doses. Reply at 4. i i

4 The IN to which NECNP/Comonwealth cite concerns incorrect and i

insufficiently detailed operating procedures. It does not appear that any [

l of the events discussed in the IN resulted in ary dose at all, much less i the significant dose that NECNP/Comonwealth regard as so likely to result i

i i i

4 from the licensee's proposed amendment as to require an environmental impact statement, t:

NECNP/Cortcenwealth's proposed Environmental Contention 2 concerns occupational dose to workers and the possibility that the peel stated in the EA might be exceeded. IN No. 88-65 does not supply the basis and i spt;cificity lacking in Environmental Contention 2 as originally proposed. [

Environnntal Contention 2 continues to lack basis and specifit.ity; it

, should be rejected.

C. Environmental Contention 3 In their reply, NECNP/Comonwealth take the licensee and the Staff to task for arguing that the proposal to expand the capacity of the spent fuel pool at Vermont Yankee does not involve the reouirement of Section i

10?(2)E of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that the  ;

government "study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recomended courses of action in any propesal which involves unresolved i j conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources." 42 U.S.C.

4332(E). (Emphasis added). NECNp/ Commonwealth have ret offered to enlighten I

the Staff regarding their view of what "unresolved conflicts" aru i "avellable resources" are involved or how their preference for dry cask storage relates to eny requirement of this section. NECNP/Comonweal th purport to regard the Staff's position that the proposal dces not involve

[

resources not elready considered in the FES on plant operation as

baffling. However, NECNP/Comenwealth ignore the fact that the proposal I l 1 cer.cerns an amendment to permit a Technical Specification char.ce in an l

i operating license for a fecility whose operation has already been  !

l

,i i

. - . - - - . - . _ . - - - . . . , , __.___-..__w,.,- ~ .__,,__-.-_._,__m ._.__,,,_.-___,,m.,_,,,,.,____w.. - . - . _ _ .

, considered in an FES. NECNP/Com.onwealth have failed to identify any scarce or otherwise environmentally sigr.ificant resources that they believe to be involved in this proposal. It is not enough for NECNP/Comonwealth to state as a basis for their proposed contention that they read certain decisions construing NEPA as supporting their view that the Staff did less than it should have done. NECHP/Connonwealth should state what they believe the Staff Fas omitted in its Environmental Assessment and how the omission relates to NEPA requirements. The proposed contention is r.cnspecific with regard to both NEPA requirements and what the Staff failed to consider. It should not be edmitted.

III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above with regard to NECNP/Correnwealth's reply and for the reasons stated previcesly in the NRC Staff's response to the Joir.t Motion, the late-filed environmental contentions of NECNP and the Connonrealth should be re.iected.

Respectfully submitted, VLL L ,. ,

c [9 t{ CA. .

Ann P. Hodgdon y Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Marylard this 3Cth day of September, 1980  ;

i

L'NITED STATES OF AMERICA c*eliP NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING P0ARD N In the Matter of crre - t' C0CM "'"#

W'h

• VERPONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA POWER CORPORATION i (Spent Fuel Pool Amendment) h (Vermont Yankee Fuclear Power )

Station)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO "JOINT REPLY OF NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION AFD COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS..." " in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Corm.ission's internal mail system, this 30th day of September,1988:

Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.* Mr. Glenn 0. Bright

• Adminirtrativc Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Comissirr U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. James H. Carpenter

• George Dana Bisbee, Esq.

Administrative Judge Senior Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 25 Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Concord, NH 03301-6397 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ellyn R. Weiss, Eso.

Panel (1)* Andrea C. Ferster, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Hartnon & Weiss Washington, D.C. 20555* 2001 S Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20009 Samuel H. Press, Esq.

c/o Vennont Dept. of Public Service Carol S. Sneider, Esq.

120 State Street Assistant Attorney General Montpelier, VT 05602 Office of the Attorrey General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor R. K. Gad, !!!, Esq. Boston, MA 02108 Ropes and Gray 225 Franklin Street Jay Gutierrez, Esq.*

Poston, MA 02110 Regional Counsel USNRC, Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Atccic Safety and Licensing Appeal Docketing and Service Section*

l Panel (5)* Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 l Adjudicatory File

• l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docket U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Comissier Weshington, D.C. 20555 k '/J Ann P. Hodgden

/

Jytw Counsel for NRC Staff l

l 4

___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -