ML20245A798

NRC Staff Response to Licensing Board Memoranudm (Issued for Consideration at 890621 Oral Argument), .* Discusses Environ Contention 3.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20245A798
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	06/09/1989
From:	Patricia Jehle NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20245A775	List: ML20245A773 ML20245A777 ML20245A788 ML20245A798
References
LBP-89-06, LBP-89-6, OLA, NUDOCS 8906220186
Download: ML20245A798 (8)

Text

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.JUN 0 9 1989-C'OcKETED

._ USHRC UNITED STATES'0F AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.gg g BEFORE-THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OFFIO DUCn, ' '

In the Hatter of '

W '

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR Docket No. 50-271-0LA POWER CORPORATION '(Spent' Fuel Pool Amendment)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

-NRC STAFF RESPONSE'TO THE LICENSING BOARD'S-MEMORANDUM'(ISSUED FOR CONSIDERATION

.AT 6/21/89 ORAL ARGUMENT), DATED MAY 25, 1989 QUESTION 1 Does NECNP's claim concerning the environmental superiority of dry-cask storage rest solely on severe-accident considerations?

RESPONSE

Insofar as this question concerns .CNP's contention, it is for NECNP 1 to answer. As regards NECNP's documents, its "Brief and Summary of Relevant Facts and Arguments on Which NECNP Intends To Rely at Oral ArgumentonEnvironmentalContention3"(NECNP's'Brief)andthe accompanying " Testimony of Gordon Thompson," rely solely on severe-accident considerations. No basis other than severe-accidents is provided or documented. f QUESTION Ia j If so, may we take those considerations into account prior to the j Appeal Board's granting authority for us to consider the severe-accident basis to this contention, which we admitted in LBP-89-6, 29 NRC.127. i (February 2,1989). but concerning which we' deferred effectiveness pending Appeal Board action on our referral of the ruling? Do we have to' defer any consideration of such a. claim until after the Appeal Board's decision on LBP-89-6? Should we defer any ruling on Environmental Contention 3 pending the Appeal Board's determination on our referral ruling?

8906220186 890609 PDR O ADOCK 05000271 '

PDR t

i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ______a

4

- 2'-

RESPONSE

No. It is unnecessary for the Licensing Board to defer considering and ruling on Contention 3 until the Appeal Board issues.a decision on LBP-89-6...The Licensing Board should proceed with consideration'of-Environmental Contention 3 as admitted' byLthe October 11, 1988 Memorandum and Order. Vermont' Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee' Power Station),LBP-88-26A,28NRC440,448(1988).

In the Staff's view the_. severe-accident basis does'not support-Environmental Contention 3. The basis i:: unrelated to NECNP's assertion that Licensee's proposal to increase ~the number of fuel assemblies stored in the Vermont Yankee Spent Fuel Pool involves-unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. "New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Brief and Summary of Relevant Facts and Arguments on Which NECNP_ Intends to Rely at Oral Argument on Environmental Contention 3," dated May 23, 1989.

l2 QUESTION lb i

l If not, what other environmental attributes of dry cask storage, j should we take into account in assessing that alternative and addressing Environmental Contention 3? i RESPONSE ->

j

.First, the severe-accident basis cannot be considered an-i

" environmental _ attribute" of dry cask storage.- Secondly, the Interveners have not set forth a legal basis for their Environmental Contention 3.  !

Moreover, the Licensing Board need not consider any " environmental-attributes of dry cask storage" in this amendment proceeding on a proposal l toexpandexistingwet(pool) storage.

l

'l 1

i lSTION Ic Apart from the Appeal Board's ruling on the referred ruling, are the

?ere-accident risks propounded by NECNP a permissible response to the Cf's discussion of severe accidents in its Environmental Assessment'

5) (at p.,11) and hence to the adequacy of the EA?

60NSE No. In the Staff's view, the issue of the admissibility of the Gre-accident contention is before.the Appeal Board; no part of.it is ere the Licensing Board, that Board having referred the ruling. NECNP.

not now enlarge its contention to embrace other aspects of severe Cdents that might not be before the Appeal Board. The time for filing Sentions on the EA has passed.

BTION 3 Because of the applicability to this proceeding cf the so-called

@ rules, and because physical reracking was authorized under those 9s prior to the resolution of various issues in this proceeding, are er are we not required to consider the impacts of reracking de novo, ter than merely the incremental impacts yet to be experienced las Drently advocated by the Applicant)?

DONSE The Licensing Board is not required to consider the impacts of -- I

}cking de novo. The Interveners have raised no issues which involve Environmental impacts or consequences concerning the' design of the J

s themselves. Environmental Contention 3, the only contention tining in this proceeding, involves the alternative use of resources;- I Res not-involve the design of the spent fuel pool racks. The Licensee 0 the approval of an increase in storage capacity from 2000 fuel i

mblies to 2870 fuel assemblies. This proceeding concerns the impacts  !

end consequences of the additional 870 fuel assemblies. In its Environmental Assessment the Staff examined the environmental impacts of 1870 fuel assemblies loaded in the spent fuel pool and concluded there rould be no significant impact on the environment.

JUESTION 4 Assuming we were to determine that the EA must include a brief 2escription of the environmental impacts of dry cask storage, are the Descriptions provided by the parties in their testimony adequate for this Durpose?

tESPONSE The Staff restates its position that there is no basis for a

,1 censing Board determination that i 102(2)(E) of NEPA, requiring a liscussion of alternative use of resources, requires a discussion of dry ask storage in an EA on a proposal for wet pool storage. The requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 51.30(a)(1)(ii) are not triggered because here are no unresolved conflicts concerning available resources. The Saff's EA meets the requirements of Part 51 of the Cocinission's Igulations.

The Staff and the Licensee have provided detailed descriptions of the pneric environmental impacts of dry storage in their testimony.

Sffidavit of Frederick C. Sturz of the NRC Staff Regarding NECNP's tvironmental Contention 3," dated May 26,1989 (Sturz Affidavit); " Sworn

>itten Testimony of Donald A. Reid, Michael J. Marian, Randolph M. Grube, phn M. Buchheit, Richard P. Pizzuti, and Peter S. Littlefield," submitted r

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, dated May 23, 1989.

The Staf f's EA, and the testimony filed by the Staff and the Licensee evide sufficiently detailed descriptions of the environmental impacts of

i- i

^

.)

l fi

[

dry cask storage to meet a Licensing Board determination that a brief) ';l description is required,'and the requirements of 10.C.F.R. Part SIL l c j

-QUESTION 4a -+ 0 1

In that connection, in what manner, if at all. do they factorjin the' 1 benefits attributable to the passive' nature of dry cask storage.and the attendant operational benefits, as set forth in'the proposed rulemaking on j dry 3asx storage (54 Fed.l Reg.- 19379,19380~(May:5,.1989))-(providedby- j NECNP as Attachment 2 to its filing)? j RESPONSE .-

'Yes. The Staff is ' aware of. the ' benefits Lof dry . cask storage andl '

factored in those benefits in its conclusion that the potential environmental impacts from dry cask storage areL small and.will not - k significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Sturz Affidavit e+ 11 9, 33-36, 38-39.

i The fact that the Staff points'out:the benefits of dry cask storage in no way implies that the method is environmentally superior or-environmentally preferable'to wet storage. Wet and dry storage' methods have benefits and shortcomings; that the' Staff concluded both methods have no significant environmental impact indicates that any shortcomings are negligible and are outweighed by benefits. The Staff in its p.roposed rulemaking concludes that dry cask storage is an environmentally acceptable method for storing spent fuel, as is expanded. spent fuel pool-storage.

QUESTION'4b In what manner, if at all, do the descriptions of dry cask storage-factor in a comparison of potentia 1' accidents, both within and beyond l

design basis, comparable to that appearing on p. 11 of the EA with respect t to the proposed expansion of pool storage?

RESPONSE

As discussed above and in other documents filed by the Staff today, the subject of severe accidents is before the Appeal Board in the referral of LBP-89-6.

Respectfully submitted, bCLib-Patricia Jehle Counsel for NRC Staff Date at Rockville, Maryland this 9th day of June, 1989.

l

N 0 9 1989 q ;t r, t

.uc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.89 JUN 14 PS :01 y BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD j bckikiA W H"

'I in the Matter of {

jERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA POWER CORPORATION (Spent Fuel Pool Amendment) -l 1

[Varmont Yankee Nuclear Power '!

Station)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE j

jh:rIbycertifythatcopiesof"NRCSTAFFMOTIONTOSTRIKETHETESTIMONY {

F GORDON THOMPSON", "NRC STAFF REPLY TO BRIEFS OF THE NEW ENGLAND COAL

• TION

[N NUCLEAR POLLUTION AND VERMONT YANKEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL -l CONTE j AFFIDAVIT OF FREDERICK C. STURZ AND MORTON B. FAIRTILE OF THE NRC STAFF f'EGARDINGNECNPANDTHECOMMONWEALTHOFMA

/

IONTENTION 3" and "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO THE LICENSING BOARD'S MEMORANDUM 1

j lSSUED FOR CONSIDERATION AT 6/21/89 ORAL ARGUMENT), DATED MAY 25, 1989 in fheabove-captionedproceedinghavebeenservedonthefollowingbydep i fntheUnitedStatesmail,firstclass,orasindicatedbyanasteriskthrough eposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 1 th day of June, 1989:

(harles Bechhoefer, Esq.* Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.*

.ministrative Judge Administrative Judge temic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-

.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission ,

Dshington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

g.m.JamesH. Carpenter

• George Dana Bisbee, Esq.

inistrative Judge Senior Assistant Attorney General .t 60mic Safety and Licensing Board Environmental Protection Bureau 3 5. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 25 Capitol Street shington, D.C. 20555 Concord, NH 03301-6397 oomic Safety and Licensing Board Diane Curran, Esq.

Panel (1)* Harmon, Curran & Tousley S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 2001 S Street, N.W.

$shingt:n,D.C. 20555* Washington, DC 20009

[orgaYoung,Esq.

John Traficonte, Chief heialAssistantAttorneyGeneral Nuclear Safety Unit grmont Depart. of Public Service Office of the Attorney General-(OStateStreet One Ashburton Place untpelier, VT 05602 Boston, MA 02108

R.K. Gad, III, Esq. Jay Gutierrez, Esq.*

Ropes and Gray Regional Counsel One International Place USNRC, Region I Boston, MA 02110-2624 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)* Docketing and Service Section*

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of.the Secretary Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Adjudicatory File

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Bashington, D.C. 20555 ht W *N '

Patricia A. Jehle Counsel for NRC Staff l

_ _ _ _ , _ _ , _ ___ __ - - - - _ _ , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -