ML20206M201
| ML20206M201 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1987 |
| From: | Hodgdon A NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3134 OLA, NUDOCS 8704200052 | |
| Download: ML20206M201 (24) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
bu
~
April 13, 1987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00), [gED BEFORE TIIE LICENSING BOARD .
'87 APR 16 P4 :26 In the Matter of )
) $fFIb'Ubbr 0C 3RANC" VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-271 -OQ POUER CORPORATION )
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power )
Station)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE OF VERMONT, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS AND NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION I. INTRODUCTION On March 30, 1987, in response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's (Board) Order of February 27, 1987, Petitioners the State of Vermont, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) submitted proposed contentions that they wish to litigate in this proceeding. O The Staff's response to these contentions is set forth below.
II. DISCUSSION A. Standards Applicable to Proposed Contentions In order for petitioners' contentions to be admitted as matters in controversy in this proceeding, they must satisfy the Commission's re-
-1/ " Introductory Statement and Contentions of the State of Vermont"
" Contentions of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," "New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Response to Board Order of February 27, 1987: Statement of Contentions and Standing."
8704200052 870413 PDR G
ADOCK 05000271 PDR {)I
i-quirement that the basis for the contention be set forth with reasonable specificity. 10 C.F.R. I 2.714 (b). Also, the proposed contentions must fall within the scope of the issues set forth in the Notice of Hearing initiating the proceeding. 2_/ The purpose of the basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714 are (1) to assure that the contention in question raises a matter appropriate for litigation in a particular proceeding, 3/ (2) to establish a sufficient foundation for the contention to warrant further inquiry into the subject matter addressed by the assertion and, (3) to put the other parties sufficiently on notice" ... so that they will knew at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." Peach Bottom, at 20. From the standpoint of basis, it is unnecessary for the petition to detail the evidence which will be offered in support of each contention. Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, l
-2/ Public Service Cc. cf Indiana. Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167,170 (1976). See, also, Commonwealth Edison Company (Carroll County Site),
TEIB-601, 12 NRC 18, 24 (1980); Portland General Electric Co.
(Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287, 289-290, n. 6 (1979).
3,/ A contention must be rejected where:
(a) it constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirements; (b) it challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (c) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the interve-nor's views of what applicable policies ought to be; (d) it seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or (e) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974).
l
i.
Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973). Furthermore, in ex-amining the contentions and their bases, a licensing board should not reach the merits of the contentions. Houston Lighting and Power Compa-n_y (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590,11 NRC 542, 548 (1980); Duke Power Co. (Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773-Transportation of Spent Fuel From Oconec Nuclear Station for i
Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station), ALAD-528, 9 NRC 146,151 (1979);
Peach Bottom, supra, at 20; Crand Gulf, supra, at 426.
As the Appeal Board instructed in Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7
{
AEC 210, 216-217 (1974), in asserting the acceptability of a contention as a basis for granting intervention:
[T]he intervention bcArd's task is to determine, from a scru-tiny of what appears within the four corners of the contention as statad, =%ther (1) the requisite specificity exists; (2) there has been an adequate delineation of the basis for the contention; and (3) the issue sought to be raised is cogniz-abic in an individual licensing proceeding. (Footnotes omitted)
If a contention meets these criteria, the contention provides a foundation for admission " irrespective of whether resort to extrinsic evidence might establish the contention to be insubstantial." Farley , supra, 7 AEC at 217. O The question of the contention's substance is for later resolution
- cither by way of 10 C.F.R. I 2.749 summary disposition prior to the evidentiary hearing ... or in the initial decision following the conclusion of such a hearing." Farley, supra, 7 AEC at 217. Thus, it is incumbent
-4/ However, the proposed contention should refer to and address rele-vant documentation, available in the public domain. . . See, Cleve-land Electric Illuminating Company, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant , Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-24, IMC 175, 181-184 (1981).
upon petitioners to set forth contentions supported by bases that are sufficiently detailed and specific to demonstrate that the issues they pur-port to raise are admissible. !
It should also be noted, in light of Petitioners State of Vermont and .
NECNP having asserted here that once the Staff issues its Draft Environ-mental Assessment and Safety Evaluation they will file additional conten-tions (Vermont Contentions at 4, NECNP Response at 8-9), that it is well settled that the unavailability of licensing-related documents does not es-ttblish in itccif good cause for filing a late contention. Duke Power Co.
(Catawba 1;uclear Station , Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041 (1983).
B. Vermont's Proposed Contentions k
- 1. Contention I Vermont contends that the proposed amendment is not of the type as to which a no signi'icant hazards determination can properly he made. Vermont Brief at 5. Vermont offers two separate bases for the contention. The first concerns the Nuclecr Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the procedural history underlying its enactment. As a part of its first basis, Vermont also cites to the history of the Commission's waste confi-dence rule-making proceeding and the legislative history of the "Sholly" amendments to Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act. Vermont's Brief at 5-10,
-5/ Although the State of Vermont has not set forth a section in its pleading with specific contentions that it wishes to pursue in this matter, it does raise throughout its pleading issues that it seeks to litigate. Accordingly, the Staff will address the concerns raised by the State of Vermont in order to determine if any of these matters meet the Commission's requirements for an admissible contention.
Vermont's allegations concern a legal dispute and not a factual matter amenable to resolution in an evidentiary proceeding. As regards Vermont's legal argument concerning the NWPA, the Commission consid-ered the impact of the NWPA on the Commission's waste confidence rule-making. The Commission solicited comments on tne NWPA's impact on waste confidence and addressed the comments that were submitted in its Final Waste Confidence Decision, 49 Fed. Reg. 34658 (August 31, 1984).
The Commission explicitly stated:
The Commission has no evidence that delays of a year or so in meeting any of the milestones set forth in the NWPA would delay the repository availability date by more than a few years beyond the 1998 date specified in the NWPA. The Commission found reasonable assurance that a repository would be available by 2007-09, a dec-ade later than that specified in the NWPA, and a date which allows for considerable slippaFe in the DOE sched-ule. The Act also requires that any Federal agency that determines that it cannot comply with the repository de-velopment schedule in the Act must notify both the Sec-retary of Energy and Congress, provide reasons for its inability to meet the deadlines, and submit recommenda-tions for mitigating the delay. The Commission notes that the Act also clarified how the requirements of the Naticnal Environmental Policy Act are to be met. These provisions of the Act, as well as the provisions for re-search, development and demonstration efforts regarding waste disposal, it. crease the prospects for having the first repository in operation not later than the first few years of the next century.
Thus, the Commission has indicated that it does not share Vermont's res-crvations regarding waste confidence in light of the NWPA.
As regards Vermont's arguments concerning the "Sholly" amend-ments, the Commission has stated in 10 C.F.R. I 50.58(b)(6) that it will not entertain petitions or other requests for review of or hearing on the Staff's significant hazards consideration determination. The Staff's deter-mination is final, subject only to the Commission's review at its discre-ticn , on its own initiative. 10 C.F.R. 5 50.58(b)(6). Furthermore,
although the Commission's regulation in 10 C.F.R. I 50.91(c)(ii) provides a role for state participation, the regulation states that: "The State con-sultation procedures in paragraph (b) of this section do not give the
, State a right to a henring on the determination before the amendment be-comes effective." If Vermont were allowed to pursue this issue it would 4 constitute a challenge to the Commission's regulations, which is impermis-sible under 10 C.F.R. I 2.758(b), except in accordance with the proce-dures set forth in that subsection. Further, the Statement of 1
Considerations in connection with the promulgation of the rule states that:
It is important to bear in mind as one reads this back- I ground statement and the final regulations that there is no intrinsic safety significance to the "no significant hazards consideration" standard. Neither as a notice standard nor as a standard about when a hearing may be
~; held does it have a substantive safety significance.
Whether or not an action requires prior notice or a prior hearin g, no license and no amendment may be issued unless the Commiselon concludes that it provides reason-able assurance that the public health and safety will not be endangered and that the action will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. See, e g , f 50.57(a). In short, i the "no significant hazards consideration" standard is a procedural standard which governs whether an opportu-nity for a prior hearing must be provided before action is taken by the Commission, and, as discussed later, whether prior notice for public comment may be e dispensed with in emergency situations or shortened in i
exigent circumstances. 51 Fed. R g 7744 (March 6, 1986).
Vermont also asserts that a final finding of no significant haz-ards consideration determination would deprive the citizens of Vermont of their right to be heard and would be inappropriate, unwise and unfair.
Vermont Brief at 10. The Staff submits that Vermont's hearing rights are not affected by whether and when the final finding is made and that, as 10 C.F.R. I 50.91(c)(ii) states, Vermont has no right to be heard on this
i
-7_
narrow procedural point. 6_/ See also, Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
~
6/ Concerning Vermont's argument that the legislative history of the "Sholly" amendment establishes that Congress did not intend that a spent fuel pool expansion request could or should be brought within the no significant hazards consideration exception to prior hearing requirements (See Vermont . Brief at 6), the Commission has ad-dressed this matter repeatedly, perhaps most explicitly in its State-ment of Consideration on adopting " Final Procedures and Standards on No Significant Hazards Considerations," 51 Fed. Reg. 7744 (March 6,1986). The Commission stated there:
- b. Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools. Before issuance of the two interim f!nsi rules, the Commission provided pri-or notice and opportunity for prior hearing on requests for amendments involving reracking of spent fuel pools.
When the interim final rule on standards was published, .
the Commission explained that it was not prepared to say I that reracking of a spent fuel storage pool will necessar-ily involve a significant hazards consideration. It stat-ed, nevertheless, as shown by the legislative history of Pub. L.97-415, specifically of section 12(a), that Con-gress was aware of the Commission's practice, noting that members of both Houses ststed, before passage of that law , that they expected that this practice would continue. Id_.
eee i
The Commission decided not to include reracking in the list of examples that are considered likely to involve a significant hazard consideration, because a significant hazards consideration finding is a technical matter which l has been assigned to the Commission. However, in view of the expressions of Congressional understanding, the t
Commission stated that it felt that the matter deserved l further study. Accordingly, it instructed the staff to l prepare a report on this matter, and stated that it would j
revisit this part of the rule upon receipt and review of j the staff's report. -Id. The report is described in de-l tail in section II(D) below.
Section II(D) states (in relevant part):
i Herackings Comments -
A group of commenters state that rerackings should be considered amendments that pose significant hazards considerations, in light of the Commission's past practice and the understand-(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
=_- . . - -. - . . - - _ - _ _ - - .
~
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) ing of Congress that the practice would be continued.
Another group of commenters agrees with the Com-mission's position that the significant hazards deter-mination on each amendment request to expand a specific spent fuel pool should be based on the Commission's technical judgment.
i Response - In its decision to issue the two interim final rules , the Commission directed the staff to prepare a report which (1) examines the agency's experience to date on spent fuel pool expansion i
reviews and (2) provides a technical judgment on the basis for which various methods to expand spent fuel pools may or may not pose significant hazards considerations.
The staff contracted with Science Applications, Inc.
(SAI) to perform an evaluation of whether increased storage of spent fuel could pose significant hazards considerations in light of the guidance in the inter-im final rules. SAI provided a report entitled,
" Review and Evaluation of Spent Fuel Pool Expan-sion Potential Hazards Considerations."
S AI-84-221-WA Rev. 1 (July 29, 1983). On the basis of that report, the staff informed the Commis-sion in SECY-83-337 (August 15, 1983) of the re-
! sults of its study and included the SAI report.
- (Both the report and the study are available as indicated above.)
i eee The staff concluded in its technical judgement that a request to expand the storage capacity of a spent fuel pool which satisfies the following is considered
< not likely to involve significant hazards considerations:
(1) The storage expansion method consists of ei-ther replacing existing racks with a design which allows closer spacing between stored spent fuel assemblies or placing additional racks of the original design on the pool floor if space permits; (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
(2) The storage expansion method does not involve rod consolidation or double tiering; (3) The Keff of the pool is maintained less than or equal to 0.95; and (4) No new technology or unproven technology is utilized in either the construction process or the analytical techniques necessary to justify the expansion.
This judgment .was based on the staff's review of 96 applications and the result of the SAI study, which indicates that if a spent fuel pool expansion request satisfied the above criteria then it meets the three standards in the interim final rules in that it:
- (1) Does not involve a signif! cant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident .
previously evaluated; and (3) Does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Finally, the staff stated to the Commission that:
Applications which do not fall into the above cate-i gory must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
7 There are secondary issues which may be associated with a spent fuel pool expansion, but they must be i considered on their own technical merit as a sepa-rate issue. As an example, transferring fuel to another site for storage or transferring fuel in a cask to another onsite spent fuel pool, if request-ed, must both be evaluated on a separate basis as to whether or not they involve significant hazards
- considerations.
The Commission has accepted its staff's judgment, discussed above. It has added the following new example (x) to the list of examples in the "not like-ly" category in section I(C)(2)(e) for reracking l (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED OF " EXT PAGE) l
.m----_ - . ---- - w ., -p,.-.i,, . m , ag m ,e-, w, ----%-- -e- -ym ,.,,,.,p-.,.c.- w.m -g - ,.-g .w w -m--r-v- - -. __--- __ _ - - - - -_ -- --
--. - - = . -_. -- .
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 and 2), CLI-86-12, 24 NRC 1, 12 (1986). b Another basis for Vermont's contention that a no significant hazards consideration determination is not appropriate regards Vermont's reading of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (LLRWPA). Ver-mont Brief at 11-13. Verruont correctly states that under the LLRWPA the State will have to assume responsibility for low-level radioactive waste generated within its borders. Ilowever, its perception of a nexus be-tween that requirement and the no significant hazards consideration de-termination, which, as stated above, is a procedural standard applicable (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) j requests satisfying the four criteria noted above
[Reracking requests that do not meet these criteria will be evaluated case by case.]
(x) An expansion of the storage capacity of a spent fuel pool when all of the following are j satisfied:
(1) The storage expansion method consists of either replacing e:dsting reeks with a design which allowe closer spacing be-tween stored spent fuel assemblies or placing additional racks of the original design on the pool floor if space permits; (2) The storage expansion method does not involve rod consolidation - or double tiering; (3) The Keff of the pool is maintained less than or equal to 0.95; and l
(4) No new technology or unproven technolo-
! gy is utilized in either the construction process or the analytical techniques nec-essary to justify the expansion.
-7/ Reversed, in Lart, on other grounds, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. N H.C., 79FFTd I268 (9th Cir.) (1986).
to Part 50 amendment applications, in mistaken. Vermont's quarrel is with the LLRWPA, not with the proposed amendment. Thus, the State's argu-ment concerning the LLRWPA does not provide a basis for its contentions.
Accordingly, this contention should be rejected as lacking an adequate basis.
- 2. Contention II 8, Vermont contends that the application for spent fuel pool expansion cannot be granted absent preparation of an environmental im-pact statement (EIS). Vermont Brief at 13. The Commission addressed a similar argument on a request for a stay of the Staff's issuance of an amendment permitting reracking at Diablo Canyon. Diablo Canyon, supra.
The Commission said that in order to challenge the Staff's decision not to issue an EIS, the petitioners were required to allege something more than a generalized failure to prepare an EIS or generalized disagreement with the Staff's conclusion that reracking does not pose a "significant impact"
, to the environment. 24 NRC at 12. The Commission's regulations do not require preparation of an EIS on a proposed amendment to permit reracking. See, 10 C.F.R. I 51.20. Vermont's Contention II impermissively attacks the Commission's regulations and, therefore, may be pursued only according to the regulations in 10 C.F.R. I 2.758.
~
8/ Contention II is found in Section IV of the State of Vermont's Brief, "The Application For Expansion of the Spent Fuel Pool Cannot Be Granted Absent a Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement."
- 3. Contention III k In proposed Contention III, the State of Vermont alleges that expansion of the spent fuel pool may exacerbate the effect of a severe accident. Vermont Brief at 15. However, Vermont has offered no basis for this allegation beyond the simple assumption that an increase in spent fuel storage results in increases in the physical loads including seismic, the heat loads in the pool and the inventory of stored radioactive materi-al. Vermont Brief at 16. Vermont fails to identify the accident to be exacerbated; nor does the State detail how a greater inventory would aggravate any problem the.t the unidentified accident would cause. There is no allegation here that the planned expansion fails to meet the regula-tory requirements of Part 50. EI Nor are the allegations regarding an accident specific enough to permit a response. Accordingly, this pro-posed contention fails to state a basis with specificity. 10 C.F.R.
! I 2.714 (b) . Therefore, it must be rejected.
C. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Contentions The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has submitted two proposed contentions. For the reasons discussed below, the Staff's view is that
]
neither is admissible.
l l
~
9/ Contention III is found in Section V of the State of Vermont's Brief l " Expansion of the Spent Fuel Pool May Exacerbate the Effects of a Severe Accident."
g/ The Commission's Severe Accident Policy Statement explicitly removed plant-specific reviews of severe accident vulnerabilities as a neces-sary or routine part of an Operating License review. 50 Fed. Reg.
32,138, 32,144; Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 695 (1985). Fur-ther, consideration of such accidents need not be undertaken under i the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as NEPA could
(
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
- 1. The Commonwealth's Contention I
, In its Contention I, the Commonwealth alleges that the proposed license amendment is inconsistent with the protection of the public health and safety and the environment. Commonwealth Contentions at 1. Al-though the contention is a very generalized statement and lacking in specificity, the Commonwealth offers a six-part basis to support it. The relationship betwcen the six parts is not clear and it is not evident whether the events mentioned are intended to be sequential or whether they are independent and unrelated. In any case, taken together or tak-en separately, they do not constitute an adequate basis for the conten-tion. In considering the admissibility of the Commonwealth's Contention I, it must be borne in mind that the proposed action concerns the expan-sion of a spent fuel pool in a facility that has an operating license and that has been granted an amendment permitting in to store 2000 assem-blies. The instant application concerns a request to rerack to store 870 more assemblies.
Basis 1 states that severe accidents are possible. However, the Commonwealth fails to state how these severe accidents might be triggered or how they are related to the requested amendment, which would permit reracking the pool to accommodate 870 additional assemblies. The second basis asserts that hydrogen could be generated in a severe accident and released into the reactor building if the containment failed. This is not a (TOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) not logically require more than the safety provisions of the Atomic Energy Act. See, Limerick, supra, at 690, fn.10. See also, San Luis Obispo Mowers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, IC(D.C.
Cir. 1984), vacated in art and reh'g en banc granted on other grounds, 760 F.2d 13YF ( ).
l 1 i basis, but it is an unsupported allegation. There is thus no discussion of the relationship between this event and the requested amendment.
Basis 3 also concerns the release of hydrogen gas. In this basis the Commonwealth asserts that the hydrogen gas might burn or det-onate and that detonation would threaten the structural integrity of the containment building. Commonwealth Contention at 2. This basis does not support the proposed contention. It is indeed a separate contention without any independent support. It concerns the possibility that the released hydrogen will damage the spent fuel cooling systems and that restricted access to the building will prevent their repair or that the structural integrity of the spent fuel pool will be breached. Common-wealth Contentions at 2. Neither possibility provides sufficient specificity I to support the proposed contention but merely adds detail without estab-i lithing how this relates to the requested amendment.
The fifth basis states that either inadequate cooling or a breach in the pool can result in a radiological release. The details regarding how this might occur are not revealed nor is there any effort to tie this situation into the requested amendment. Finally, the sixth basis states
! that an increase in the amount of spent fuel stored in the pool would re-sult in an increase in the radiological release in the event of a severe accident. The Commonwealth offers no foundation for its belief that this t
is so.
The fragmented scenario that the Commonwealth provides to support its contention is pure conjecture. It is not supported by any references to the application or to any other documents. The contention l
l and its bases are too vague to put opposing parties on notice of what must be defended against. The Commonwealth's Contention I should be I
rejected as failing to meet the specificity and basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b).
- 2. The Commonwealth's Contention II In its proposed Contention II, the Commonwealth alleges that the NRC staff has failed to vply with its rules in not having considered alternatives to the proposed action. As a basis the Commonwealth accu-rately states that NRC regulations,10 C.F.R. I 51.21, mandate that an environmental assessment he prepared for all licensing and regulatory actions except those that require an environmental inpact statement pur-suant to 10 C.F.R. 5 51.20(b) and those categorically excluded in I 51.22(c). The Commonwealth states that an environmental assessment has not been prepared and that the proposed amendment is not an action identified in either 10 C.F.R. I 51.20(b) or I 51.22(c).
Although Contention II may be said to state a contention and provide a specific basis as Eupport, it is not a contention that is amena-ble to resolution in an evidentiary proceeding. The Staff is preparing an -
cnvironmental assessment concerning the proposed amendment. However, at this stage of the proceedings the Commonwealth's contention should be directed to any perceived deficiency in the Licensee's environmental re-port and not to the Staff's yet to be issued document. Commission cases construing 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a) regarding late-filed contentions make it clear that the filing of an environmental concern based on an applicant's environmental report will not be deferred simply because the Staff may j subsequently provide a different analysis in its DES. Duke Power Co.
(Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1049 l
l (1983). Further, the unavailability of a licensing-related document does not establish good cause for filing a contention late if information was
_ _ _ _ _ ._. n
publicly available early enough to provide the basis for the timely filing of that contention. Catawba, supra, at 1045, 1048.
In its Contention II, the Commonwealth fails to identify an envi-ronmental concern other than that the Staff has not yet issued its docu-ments. For the reasons discussed, the Licensing Board should find that the Commonwealth's Contention II falls to satisfy the specificity require-ments of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b). Accordingly, the Board shoud reject the contention.
D. NECNP's Response
- 1. Standing I In its Memorandum and Order of February 27, 1987, the Board directed NECNP to file information identifying at least one member whose interest might be affected by the proposed action and to provide some concrete indication that the member had authorized NECNP to represent him or her in the proceeding. Memorandum and Order at 4-5, 6. In respcuse to this direction, NECNP filed a list providing the names and addresses of three persons who are members of NECNP living within ten miles of the plant. NECNP also filed sworn affidavits of those persons authori::inF NECNP to represent their interests. In the Staff's view, NECNP has made the requisite showing of standing and should be admit-tcd to the proceeding as a party intervenor on a finding by the Board j that NECNP has submitted at least one contention admissible under the standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b).
- 3. NECNP's Contentions
- a. Contention 1 NECNP alleges in its proposed Contention 1 that the spent fuel pool expansion would pose undue risk to public health and safety by
greatly increasing the potential consequences of reactor accidents.
NECNP Response et 2. As a basis for this contention, NECNP points to (1) the relative vulnerability of the Mark I containment, (2) the fact that the spent fuel pool cooling systems are not designed to withstand the environmental conditions associated with severe accidents, (3) the possible consequences of hydrogen generated by a partial core melt leaking from containment into the reactor building, and (4) its belief that an increase in the cmount of spent fuel stored in the pool would increase the potential consequences of a reactor accident. NECNP Response at 2-4. As re-gards its first three bases, NECNP is raising a generic issue that has no particular applicability to Vermont Yankee or to the proposed amendment, l which is for reracking to add capacity for 870 additional assemblies. It is incumbent upon intervenors to frame their contentions with sufficient pre-cision to show that the issues raised are within the scope of the proceed-ing. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, LB P-80-30, 12 NRC 683, 687-88 (1980). NECNP has not done this. Nor has it provided any foundation for its belief that an increase in spent fuel inventory would result in an increase in the consequences of a nonspecified severe reactor accident.
NECNP ignores the fact that storage of 2000 assemblies is authorized and that the proposal concerns reracking to accommodate an additional 870 assemblies. NECNP has failed to show that the concern expressed in its Contention 1 relates to the proposed amendment.
- b. Contention 2 In its Contention 2, NECNP states that the proposed ex-pansion is contrary to the Commission's policy statement on Severe Reac-tor Accidents. NECNP Response at 4. As basis for the contention,
NECNP points to statements the Commission made in the Severe Accident policy regarding its intention to take all reasonable steps to reduce the chances of occurrence of a severe accident and to mitigate the conse-quences of such accidents should one occur. NECNP Response at 5.
While NECNP accurately sets forth the Commission's Severo Accident poli-cy, it does not indicate a basis for its assertion that the implementation of the proposed amendment would be inconsistent with that policy.
NECNP has failed to offer e basis for believing that an increase in pool capacity would significantly increase the potential consequences of a se-vere accident and, thus, has failed to establish a nexus between the Severe Accident Policy and the proposed amendment. b
- c. Contention 3 In its Contention 3, NECNP alleges that the proposed amendment should be denied because it violates the single failure criteri-on. NECNP Response at 6.
As a basis, NECNP states that if the proposed amendment is approved, it will be necessary under certain conditions to use one train of the residual heat removal (RHR) system to maintain the pool wa-l l ter within the design limits of 150oF. Id. The Staff notes that the use of the RHR for augmented fuel pool cooling is not a change from proce-dures now in place and thus the contention does not fall within the scope of matters raised by this amendment request. Not only did the Staff ad-dress this concern in its Safety Evaluation on the previous Vermont 11_/ See also, Staff's response to the Commonwealth's Contention 1, supra.
Yankee Spent . Fuel Pool expansion, EI but the Licensee addressed the
, question in the instant application documents in responding to the Staff's question 18. El In answer to the Staff's question, Provide the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications. Based on the submittal indicating that the spent fuel pool cooling system is under sized, provide a commitment in the proposed Tech-nical Specification modification to require the facility to be in cold shutdown conditions prior to aligning a loop of RHR for cooling the spent fuel pool, the Licensee responded:
Restrictions for the use of RHR on augmented fuel pool cooling are presently contained in VY Operat-ing Procedures 2124 (Residual Heat Removal System) and 0100 (Reactor Startup to Criticality). These procedures serve to limit augmented fuel pool cool-ing operation to cold shutdown conditions.
Further, VY Tech Spec Section 3.5. A.3 and 4.5. A.3 restrict the 7 day LCO for LPCI to the loss of one pump. Augmented fuel pool cooling reoufres the use of one train of RHR consisting of one pump in each subsystem to be committed. Therefore, si-multaneous augmented fuel pool cooling and reactor operation is prohibited by present Tech Specs since the loss of both subsystems would require immediate shutdown. Additional Tech Specs restrictions are therefore unnecessary. (Emphasis added).
I
- d. Contention 4 The allegation made in NECNP's Contention 4 is closely related to that of its Contention 3. NECNP asserts that the proposed amendment would pose an undue risk to the public health and safety by reducing the safety margin and increasing the probsbility of a radioactive M/ See Safety Evaluation, . Tune 20, 1977 at 7.
-13/ See Letter from R. W. Capstick, Licensing Engineer, Vermont Yiinkee Nuclear Power Corporation, to Vernon L. Rooney, BWR Pro-ject Directorate No. 2, Division of BWR Licensing, November 24, 1986.
release from the pool. NECNP Response at 7. As a basis, NECNP elabo-rates on the basis provided for its Contention 3. It states that since a single failure in the RHR can lead to inadequate cooling, the system is inherently less reliable and more likely to fcil than the current system where the spent fuel pool cooling system is itself adequate to remove all decay heat. Response at 8. As NECNP's Contention 4 lacks documenta-tion, it is not possible to guess at what documents it relics on for its ccnclusion that without the proposed expansion the normal spent fuel cooling system is adequate to cool the pool. However, in response to the Staff's Question 13: b Provide a discussion of the capability of the service water system to remove the increased heat load as-sociated with the increased storage capability with-out raising the RBCCWS water temperature above 850F for the worst heat load conditions, the Licensee responded (in relevant part):
At lower heat loads, when there has been sufficient decay of the discharged fuel, only the Fuel Pool Cooling System is used to maintain pool temperature within design limits. The heat load ausuciated with maintaining acceptable bulk fuel temperature is the same with increased fuel storage as with original de-sign and is dependent on how much decay has taken place in the discharged fuel in order to allow spent fuel cooling to be used alone.
Since the RHR au priented fuel pool cooling line-up would remain unti . sufficient fuel decay has taken p_ lace the Fuel Pool Cooling System and subsequently RBCCW would not normally be subjected to any greater heat load due to increased fuel storage than before.
(Emphasis added.)
NECNP has not shown that the concern expressed in its proposed Contention 4 relates to a change that will result from implemen-14/ Id.
l l
l l
tation of the amendment. Further, it fails to provide any documentation for its view that the RHR is not currently approved for use for augment-ed fuel pool cooling.
- e. Contention 5 Contention 5 states that the NRC has not complied with the requirements of the Natural Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) nor the Commission's rules in Part 51. NECNP Response at 8. NECNP offers alternative bases: (1) that the proposed expansion is a major federal action , requiring the preparation of an environc. ental impact statement and (2) that at a minimum an environmental assessment (EA) must be prepared, since EAs are required by the Commission's regulations for all l actions that are not listed in 10 C.F.R. I 51.20(b) as requiring an EIS or 10 C.F.R. I 51.22(c) as categorically excluded. NECNP Response at 8-9.
NECNP's arguments have been addressed above in response to Vermont's Contention II and the Commonwealth's Contention II.
NECNP has failed to set forth contentions with adequate bases and reasonable specificity as required by the Commission's regula-tions in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b). NECNP's petition should, therefore, be denied.
l i
i 4
l
III. CONCLUSION As no petitioner has submitted a contention supported by a basis set forth with reasonable specificity, the Licensing Board should deny peti-tieners' request that a hearing be held on the proposed application.
Respectfully subnitted, 1 yJL, OC O%
Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for 12C Staff Itted at Bethesda, Mary 1 md this 13th day of April,1987
3 s
.( , _,_
[ U'MTED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR EEGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE LICENSING BOARD 000KEILD i
0519C In the Matter of ) '87 APR 16 P4 526
)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power ) Docket No. 50cFfig 0; 3 g gg Power Corporation ) 00CKETiNG & LN,yta
) BRANCH (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Porer )
Station)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CONTEN-TIONS OF THE STATE OF VERMONT, COMMONWEALTII OF MASSACHU-SETTS AND NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION" 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 Commission's internal mail sys-tem, or as indicoted by a double asterisk by use of express mail service, or as indicated by a triple asterisk by hand-delivery, this 13th day of April,1987:
Charles Dechhoefer, Esq. Mr. Glenn O. Bright Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555* " Washington, D.C. 20555***
Dr. James H. Carpenter Richard J. Goddard Administrative Judge Regional Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board USNRC, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta St. , N.W. , Suite 2900 Washington, D.C. 20555* " Atlanta, OA 30303*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harmon a Weiss Washington, D.C. 20555* 2001 S Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009* "
David J. Mullett, Esq. Carol S. Sneider, Esq.
Special Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Vermont Depart of Public Service Office of the Attorney General 120 State Street One Ashburton Piece,19th Floor Montpelier, VT 05602 " Boston, MA 02108**
2-John A. Ritscher, Esq. Jay Gutierrez Ropes and Gray Regional Counsel 225 Franklin Street USNRC, Region I Ecston, MN 02110 631 Park Avenue
' King of Prussia, PA 19406*
r IAAL Ann P. Hodgdon hG hW
/ l Counsel for NRC Staff 4
s t
I
(
r-
+
s 4
I i . , - . ._..- .. _. .- - - . . - . -