ML20238A652
| ML20238A652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1987 |
| From: | Locke R PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4241, REF-GTECI-082, REF-GTECI-NI, TASK-082, TASK-82, TASK-OR OLA, NUDOCS 8708210039 | |
| Download: ML20238A652 (7) | |
Text
p4/
l
.h 1l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'87 AUG 17 A10:39 i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2!
i fiffARE THE ATOHIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD' 3l I
l 4l i
)
Docket Nos. 50-275 OLA 5 ~
In the Hatter of
)
50-323 OLA
)
6 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY )
(Spent Fuel Pool Reracking) l
)
7 (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
)
Plant Units 1 and 2)
)
August 14, 1987 l
8
)
'1 l'
9, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL 10l ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR'S HOT 10fi TO ADHIT LATE FILED CONTENTION 11 l 12 I.
IRLRCOUCTION 13; On June 29, 1987 Intervenor Sierra Club filed a Motion to admit a 14l contention regarding generic Issue 82 and to direct the preparation of an 15 h Environmental Impact Statement. On July 10, 1987 Pacific Gas and Electric 16I Company ("PGandE") and the NRC Staff (" Staff") filed otner answers opposing i
17 the motion. On July 21, 1987, the Appeal Board issued a decision in another 18l spent fuel pool reracking case.
(In.thf Maiter af V1PEILt Yankee Nuclear 19j E2 war Corocra*,lna (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-869, 20-25 NRC
.)
By order dated July 31, 1987, the Bot,rd directed the parties to 21 ;
file briefs by August 14, 1987 discussing the applicability of the Vermont 22 l Yankee decision to the proposed contentions of Sierra Club.
PGandE's 23 discussion of the applicability of Vermont Yankee to the Sierra Club's motion 24 follows.
///
25 j 26 l
///
97082iOOM ghhh75 PDR ADOCK PDR
}Y@
l
l 1
m I
II.
DISCUSSION i
2 A.
Sierra Club Motion f
3 In its June 29, 1987 Motion, Sierra Club asserts that, given the I 4
existence of Generic Safety Issue 82 and the draft BNL Report "Beyond Design 5
Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools (Generic Issue 82)" (" Report"), the 6
Staff's Environmental Assessment is deficient.
(Motion, pp. 2, 4, 5).
Sierra 7
Club argues that the Staff's finding of no significant impact for the proposed 8
reracking is fatally flawed since there was no discussion in any of the 9,
Staff's NEPA documents of the hazards of cladding fires in high density racks i
10 identified in the BNL Report.
(Motion, p. 4).
However, nowhere in its Motion 11 does Sierra Club discuss the appropriateness of relying on "beyond design 12 basis accident" scenarios as a predicate for postulating licensing and 13 environmental review requirements for nuclear plants. lioreover, in its Motion 14 Sierra Club completely ignores the various caveats in the Report of the many 15; uncertainties underlying the preliminary judgments reached therein.
16' 17 8.
The Vermont Yankee Decision 18l In the Vermont Yankee decision, the Appeal Board had occasion to 19 consider whether NEPA required NRC to consider severe, beyond design basis l
20 accidents in a license amendment proceeding for the reracking of the Vermont 21 Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
There, as here, an argument had been made that 22 the NRC Staff was required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 23
("EIS") to evaluate the environmental consequences of a beyond design basis i
24 accident scenario. After a lengthy discussion of the criteria which require
'25 the preparation of an EIS and the intent of the Commission's Interim Policy on 26
" Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental
~ _____________ - _______ D
{
l Policy Act of 1969," (45 Fed. Reg. 40, 101 (1980)), the Appeal Board concluded 2
that NEPA did not require the NRC to consider "... severe, beyond design
{
3 basis accidents because they are, by definition, highly improbable -- i.e.,
4 remote and speculative -- events."I# In support of this conclusion, the 5
Board cited the holding in San Luli Obisoo Mothers fAr Peace v. ILRC, 751 F.2d 6
1287 (D.C. Cir.1984), aff'd an hant, 789 F.2d 26 (1986), att.t. d e ni ed,
7 U.S.
, 107 S.Ct. 330 (1986).2I The Appeal Board observed that the 8
accident scenario postulated by the Interveners in Vermont Yankee, which 9
served as the basis for a proposed contention arising out of an increased 10 environmental risk and, hence, the purported need for an EIS, was just such an 11 accident, i.e., beyond design basis.3#
12 13j C.
Applicability of Vermont Yankee To Diablo Canyon Rerackina Proceedings 15 As in Vermont Yankee, Sierra Club's proffered late contention is 16 premised solely on the Report, which assumes a set of accident circumstances 17 which clearly constitute a "beyond design basis" scenario.
Moreover, the 18l 19 1/ Vermont Yankee, supra, Slip Opinion at 27 (footnote omitted).
20:
2/ This case involved a review of the issuance of an operating license for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. An EIS and a supplement to the EIS 21 had been prepared in 1973 and 1976, respectively.
However, in neither 1
document was there any reference or consideration of the environmental 22 consequences of a " core melt" (Class 9) accident.
Subsequent to TMI the Commission reviewed its policy of not considering Class 9 accidents in 23 EISs and directed that future EISs consider these effects.
Interveners contended inter A11A that NEPA required the Commission to prepare a 24 supplemental EIS to consider Class 9 accidents for Diablo Canyon even though that EIS had become final.
25 3/ The Board also said that such a contention was not cognizable as a matter 26 of discretion under NRC's 1980 NEPA Policy Statement. _ _ _ _ _ -
l I
1 Report unabashedly points out the very large areas of uncertainty underlying f
2 its assumptions.SI Under these circumstances, PGandE believes that the 3
holding in Vermont Yankee is directly applicable to this case.
Neither the 4
Commission's NEPA Policy Statement nor NEPA itself provide' for the admission 5
of a contention to consider the environmental consequences of a "beyond design 6
basis" accident.
Nor do they require the preparation of an Environmental 7
Impact Statement.
Vermont Yankee, suora, Slip Opinion at 27 - 29. As aptly 8
stated by the Appeal Board in Vermont Yankejt, it, Sierra Club "... cannot 9,
use a beyond design basis accident scenario to ' bootstrap' [its] way to an 10 admissible contention that asserts that an EIS is required to examine the 11 environmental risks of such an accident."
12 13 14 4/ Report, Abstract at 111.
15
///
16
///
17.
///
18
///
19
///
20 l
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
l l
24
///
25
///
26
/// __ -______________ _____-_-_____ ______ -
li 1
III. CONCLUSION 2
For the foregoing reasons de Sierra Club's Motion to admit a 3
late filed contention and to direct the preparation of an Environmental Impact 4
Statement should be denied.
5 Respectfully submitted, 6
H0HARD V. GOLUB RICHARD F. LOCKE 7
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CGNPANY P. O. Box 7442 8
San Francisco, CA 94120 (415) 972-6616 l
9 t
I BRUCE NORTON i
10 c/o RICHARD F. LOCKE P. O. Box 7442 11 San Francisco, CA 94120 (415) 9 -6616 12 13j By i
RICHARD F. LOCKE 14 Attorneys for 15 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 16 Dated:
August 14, 1987 l
17 18 i
19 i
20:
21 22 23 24 25 l
26
- j 1
i )
._-____-_-____-____-__-___.__-_A
{l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'87 AUG 17 A10:39 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gn n 00cM %
, vt p ha
)
Docket Nos. 50-275_ g In Matter of
)
50-323
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY )
(Reracking of Spent Fuel Poolsi
)
i (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
)
Plant Units 1 and 2)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 14, 1987, copies of the following document in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the follgwing by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through delivery by Federal Express:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSHER IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR'S NOTION TO AFAIT LATE-FILED CONTENTION.
B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Chairman
- Docketing and Service Branch Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Hashington DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1 original plus 3 copies) 4350 East West Highway 4th Floor Bethesda HD 20814 Glenn O. Bright
- Lawrence Chandler, Esq.
Administrative Judge Henry J. McGurren, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of Executive Legal Director Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maryland National Bank Building 4350 East West Highway 4th Floor Room 9604 Bethesda HD 20814 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda MD 20814 Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Lewis Sho11enberger Administrative Judge Regional Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 4350 East West Highway 4th Floor Halnut Creek CA 94596 Bethesda MD 20814 Atomic Safety and Licensing Edwin F. Lowry, Esq.
Board Panel Grueneich E Lowry U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 380 Hayes Street, Suite 4 Washington DC 20555 San Francisco CA 94102 l
4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Managing Editor Appeal Board Panel San Luis Obisoo County U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Telearam-Tribune Washington DC 20555 1321 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo CA 93406 Mr. Lee M. Gustafson Pacific Gas and Electric Company Richard E. Blankenburg 1726 M Street NH Suite 1100 Co-publisher Washington DC 20036-4502 Hayne A. Soroyan, News Reporter South County Publishing Company Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
P. O. Box 460 Public Utilities Commission Arroyo Grande CA 93420 5246 State Building 350 McAllister Street San Francisco CA 94102 Dr. Richard Ferguson Vice-Chairman Sierra Club Rocky Canyon Star Route Creston CA 93432 N
Richard F. Locke Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94106 Dated at San Francisco, California, this 14th day of August,1987.
i a