ML20245D625
| ML20245D625 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1989 |
| From: | Curran D, Speilberg A, Spielberg A HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG & EISENBERG, LLP., NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8794 LBP-89-06, LBP-89-6, OLA, NUDOCS 8906270180 | |
| Download: ML20245D625 (18) | |
Text
. . . __ _ _ _
.- z e .
J June 19, 1989 g *q q n
' ": N"(-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FUCLEAR FEGULATORY COMMISSION T9 JJ121 PS:25 '
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Off!L , , ,s ,
DOChi N3 4 :rf[pr "
) H .W . -
In the Matter of )
)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear )
! Power Corporation )' Docket No. 50-271-OLA
) (Spent Fuel Pool)-
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear )
Power Station) )
)
NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLIUTION'S REPLY TO OPPONENTS' MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND VY'S MOTION TO DISMISS ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENTION 3 Introduction Both the NRC Staff and Licensee have moved to strike the testimony of Gordon Thompson, and Licensee also seeks dismissal of Environmental Contention 3. Their principal argument is that Dr. Thompson's testimony presents issues that were deferred by the Licensing Board in LBP-89-6, pending resolution by the Appeal Board.1 They are in erroF. Currently pending before the Appeal Board is the question of whether a self-sustaining zircaloy clad-ding fire accident can be said to be, by definition, so unlikely, or so remote and speculative, as to lack the " significance" necessary for requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In contrast, currently pending before I
2 1 The NRC Staff also claims to be disadvantaged by an unfair element of " surprise." However, the NRC submitted no inter-rogatories regarding Environmental Contention 3. Nor did VY propound any timely interrogatories on this contention. Had these parties conducted timely discovery, they would havo learned the nature of NECNP's claims.
B906270100 890419 F PDR ADOCK 05000271j -
O PDR g
_ _ - - - - - _ - - - - _ - _ _ - _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - . - - - _ - - i
the Licensing Board are the questions of (a) whether a safer alternative to reracking exists 2 and (b) whether the NRC has met its obligation to'take a "hard look" at the safer alternative in its Environmental Assessment (EA). Thus, the Appeal Board is faced with a question about the likelihood of the risk of a certain accident, while the Licensing Board is faced with an entirely distinct question about the obligation to consider safer alternatives in the EA, wi,thout reaard to the likelihood of the risk of this accident. Thompson's testimony is fully relevant because it supports the environmental preferability of dry cask storage.3 Moreover, given the fact that the parties agree that in all other respects both technologies are " environmentally benign,"
and given the negligible marginal cost of employing the dry cask alternative, the Board need not address questions regarding the likelihood of a spent fuel cladding fire in order to conclude 2 As Dr. Thompson has explained in his testimony, the accident risks associated with high-density reracking and spent fuel storage can be totally avoided by use of low-density storage' within the pool, with placement of the remainder of the spent fuel into an alternative form of onsite storage, such as dry cask storage. Even if VY retained the high-density racks and employed dry cask storage for only the additional 870 assemblies, dry cask is environmentally preferable because it would allow for greater circulation of steam or air through the pool during an accident, and would also reduce the inventory of radioactivity released.
See Thompson Testimony at 3, 10; Rebuttal Testimony at 6-7.
3 Thus, VY's claim that NECNP is pressing frivolous claims upon this tribunal (Licensee Brief at 4, note 6) is utterly devoid of merit. Moreover, VY's howl of outraged surprise that NECNP's view of the case is different from VY's rings hollow, in light of its failure to conduct the timely discovery that would have informed it of NECNP's position.
that dry cask is the preferred alternative because it minimizes potential damage to the environment.
- i. The Licensing Board's Referral of Its Decision in LBP-89-6 Does Not Preclude Present Litigation of Joint Environmental Contention 3.
For purposes of clarity, NECNP will first set forth the pro-cedural history of the relevant contentions in this case and then discuss the distinct NEPA issues which are pending before the Appeal Board and the Licensing Board.
A. History of the proceedings In its original May 26, 1987 decision, the Licensing Board admitted two contentions of relevance here. It admitted reformu-lated contention 2 which postulated an accident that could result
.* rom the proposed license amendment whose likely risks and con-sequences were greater than those previously evaluated in connec-tion with the Vermont Yankee plant, thereby constituting the pro-posed amendment as a " major federal action significantly affect-ing the environment" requiring the preparation of an EIS.4 It 4 The exact wording of the contention as-admitted by the Licensing Board was as follows:
the proposed amendment would create a situation in which consequences and risks of a hypothesized accident (hydrogen detonation in the reactor building) would be greater than those previously evaluated in connection with the Vermont Yankee reactor. This risk is sufficient to con-stitute the proposed amendment as a " major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the licensee's environment and requiring preparation and issuance of an Environmental Impact Statement prior to approval of the amendment.
LBP-87-17, 25 NRC 838, 864 Attachment A (1987).
-4 -
simultaneously admitted reformulated Contention 3 which asserted the inadequacy of the analysis of the alternatives of dry cask and independent pool storage to the proposed license amendment, as required by both sections 102(2) (C) and 102 (2) (E) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 9 9 4332 (2) (C) and 4332(2) (E) .5 The Appeal Board reversed the decision of the Licensing Board and ruled on separate grounds that neither of these two contentions was admissable.6 On remand and after the NRC Staff's completion of its EA of the proposed license amendment in 1988, NECNP, jointly with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, submitted various late-filed environmental contentions. In LBP-88-26, the Licensing Board rejected on law of the case grounds Joint Environmental Conten-tion 1 which derived from original Contention 2 and concerned the obligation of the NRC Staff to prepare an EIS pursuant to section 102 (2) (C) of NEPA because of the likely increased risks of a self-sustaining zircaloy cladding fire if the proposed license 5 The exact wording of the contention as formulated by the Licensing Board was as follows:
The Applicant has failed to submit an adequate analysis of alternatives to the proposed action, as required by 55 102 (2 ) (C) and 102(2)(E) of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 55 4332(2)(C) and 4332 (2) (E) , and implement-ing NRC regulations and guidelines. Specifically, the Applicant has failed to analyze adequately the alternatives of (1) dry-cask storage and (2) independent pool storage.
Both of there alternatives are available options and provide obvious safety advantages over the instant proposal.
LBP-87-5, 25 NRC at 864 Attachment A.
6 ALAB-869, 26 NRC 13, reconsideration denied, ALAB-876, 26 NRC 277 (1987).
amendment was to be granted.7 However, the Licensing Board admitted Joint Environmental Contention 3 which questioned the adequacy of the NRC Staff's evaluation of alternatives pursuant to section 102 (2) (E) of NEPA, particularly, the cursory analysis of the dry-cask storage alternative. In admitting Joint Environ-mental Contention 3, the Licensing Board did not rely on the severe accident bases, incorporated from Environmental Contention 1 by reference, in determining that a sufficiently specific basis had been stated for the admission of the contention.8 In LBP-89-6, the Licensing Board reconsidered, in part, its prior decision on the admission of the late-filed environmental contentions. The Board admitted Joint Environmental Contention 1 because of an intervening decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which undercut the rationale of the Appeal Board's deci-sion in ALAB-869 and mandated a factual hearing on the actual likelihood of the postulated accident, i.e., whether it was indeed remote and speculative.9 The Licensing Board simulta-neously modified the basis for Environmental Contention 3 to also include the severe accident basis proffered by the Interveners, because the " risk of the particular accident, if found to be suf-ficient to require preparation of an EIS or modification of the EA, would likely have an impact on the consideration of alterna-l 7 LBP-88-26, 28 NRC 440 (1988).
8 Id.
9 29 NRC 127 (February 2, 1989)
- - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
tives." 29 NRC at 135. This entire ruling was referred to the Appeal Board, and the ruling's effectiveness was delayed until
~
final dispostion on the referral'by the Appeal Board.
B. The NEPA Framework and the Issues Before the Appeal and-Licensing Boards As previously established by NECNP in'its briefs, NEPA imposes at least two distinct requirements on the NRC in consid-ering the environmental effects of the proposed license amend-ment. First, NECNP has argued with respect to Joint Environmen-tal Contention 1 that NEPA requires the NRC to prepare an EIS about the proposed license amendment because the increased risk of a self-sustaining.zircaloy cladding fire accident resulting from the reracking and expansion of the spent fuel pool makes the proposed action a major federal action significantly affect-ing the environment. If required to prepare an EIS, the NRC Staff would have to prepare a detailed statement of "(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environ-ment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term produc-tivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented." 42 U.S.C. 5 4332(2) (C) .
l The litigation of Joint Environmental Contention 1 has 4 centered around the issue of " likelihood". In its original deci-sion on admissibility, ALAB-869, the Appeal Board rejected the )
)
contention as a matter of law, finding the risk of the' postulated accident to be, by definition, too unlikely, too remote and speculative, to require preparation of an EIS. 26 NRC at 30-31.
On reconsideration, before the Licensing Board and then the Appeal Board, NECNP has argued that NRC regulations, as confirmed in recent decisions from the Ninth Circuit in Sierra Club v. NRQ, j 862 F.2d 222 (9th Cir. 1988) and the Third Circuit in Limerick Ecoloav Action. Inc. v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719 (3d Cir. 1989), require that Joint Environmental Contention 1 be admitted into these' pro-ceedings for a factual hearing on the issue of the likelihood of the occurrence of the postulated accident because the NRC cannot categorically exclude a certain group of accidents as being, by definition, so unlikely as to be remote and speculative. As the Licensing Board found, NECNP has specifically challenged the characterization of the accident in question as remote and speculative and has raised questions supported by appropriate bases about the actual 2.ikelihood of the risks of the accident.
Thus, the issue currently pending before the Appeal Board con-cerns the likelihood of the risk of a self-sustaining zircaloy cladding fire resulting from the spent fuel pool expansion, i.e.,
whether this risk is remote and speculative as a matter of law.
With respect to Joint Environmental Contention 3, an entirely distinct NEPA requirement is applicable. In this con-tention, NECNP asserts that even if the NRC is not required to prepare an EIS for the proposed license amendment,-it still must
" study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recom-i 1
q I
i mended courses of action in any proposal which. involves ]
unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources."10 As the Licensing Board has already ruled, the NRC has an obligation to' consider the dry cask alternative in its EA i simply because, "where the objective of an action 'can be achieved in one of two or more ways that will have differing impacts on the environment,' the 6 102 (2) (E)' requirement comes into play."11 g_ee . e.c., Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel, 852 F.2d 1223, 1229 (9th Cir. 1988), U.S. acceal eendina (considera-tion of alternatives requirement applies whenever a proposed action could lead to harmful results); Trinity Episcocal Scheool Corp. v. Romnev, 523 F.2d 88, 93-94 (2d Cir. 1975). Section 102 (2) (E) is independent of the requirement to consider alterna-tives in an EIS, and may be triggered even if.the impacts of a proposed action are considered " insignificant." State of North Carolina v. Hudson, 665 F.Supp. 428, 445-46 (E.D.N.C. 1987).
Dr. Thompson's testimony shows the " differing impacts on the environment" that would be incurred by spent fuel pool expansion and dry cask storage. By any calculation, dry cask storage is a safer alternative to expanded fuel pool storage, given the fact that it does not rely on the integrity of the spent fuel cooling 10 42 U.S.C. 5 4332 (2) (E) . Of course, if an EIS is required, this analysis of alternatives would constitute one portion of the detailed statement. See 42 U.S.C. 9 4332 (2) (C) (iii) .
11 LBP-88-26, 28 NRC 440, 449 (1988) (citations omitted) .
- - -_ ___=_-_ _---__- _ __ -
1 system to guard the fuel against overheating.12 - Thus, the Board need not await the Appeal Board's ruling to find that dry cask j 1
storage is a safer alternative to spent fuel pool expansion, and that the Staff was required to take a "hard look" at it under 5 102 (2) (E) .
Moreover, the Licensing Board need not await the Appeal !
I Board's ruling to find that the EA failed to give the dry cask alternative the close scrutiny required by NEPA13, for the admitted reason that the Staff considered that no such considera-tion was required.14 In addition to the fact that it fails to discuss the safety benefits of dry cask storage, the EA lacks any l
)
l 12 NRC and VY assert that NECNP has not identified the
" resource" or the " conflict" at issue here.' To the contrary, NECNP has plainly stated that the resource in question is the spent fuel pool and its capacity for safe storage of the spent fuel. Moreover, Dr. Thompson's testimony and the NRC-sponsored ,
studies on which he relies regarding the many sources of risk to {
the integrity of the spent fuel pool, the safety hazards posed by )
high density racks, and the increased risk posed by adding to the j spent fuel pool inventory at Vermont Yankee, demonstrates that :
reracking would " engender a conflict concerning alternative uses ;
of available resources." Virainia Electric'and Power Co., (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-584, 11 NRC 451, 457-58 (1980).
I 13 Egg Van Abbema v. Forne11, 807 F.2d 633, 643 (7th Cir.
1986) (EA inadequate where agency responded in "the most superfi-cial fashion to the challenges brought by plaintiffs") ; Trinity Eoiscocal School Coro, v. Romnev, 523 F.2d 88, 93-94 (2d Cir.
1975) (section 102 (2) (E) mandate encompasses broad type of consid-eration and is not satisfied by a perfunctory and conclusory statement that there are no alternatives).
14 See discussion in NECNP Reply (June 9, 1989).at 6.
1
^
cost comparisons,15 or explanation of why the technology would not be available when needed. Further, the EA fails to provide any explanation for the extraordinary amounts of time it claims are necessary to license dry cask storage. Little additional light is shed on any of these issues by the NRC Staff's testimony.16 15 NECNP has raised questions about the applicant's claim that the costs of dry cask are significantly higher than those of the current proposal which the NRC must explore and evaluate in the EA. Egg NECNP Reply at 7, note 10; Van Abbema v. Fornell, 807 F.2d at 640 (agency analysis deficient because it had not undertaken an independent effort to verify or discredit particu-larized objections to material on which it relied in its review);
Sierra Club v. Alexander, 484 F.Supp. 455 (N.D.N.Y. 1980), aff'd without opinion, 633 F.2d 206 (2nd. Cir. 1980), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 954 (1980), Detition for rehearina denied, 449 U.S. 1104 (1981) (Corps officials cannot rely solely on studies'and reports prepared by applicant in deciding whether EIS is necessary; agency must exercise independent, judgment).
16 The Staff has yet to explain why it took over two years to prepare a cursory and largely generic environmental assessment on an issue for which it has reviewed over 100. applications.
Affidavit of Frederick C. Sturz, filed May 23, 1989, at 10. The NRC has completed other such environmental assessments in a mat-ter of months. Eee, e.a., letter from Ashok C. Thadani, NRC, to !
John F. Opeka, Northeast Nuclear Energy Co., dated December 16, 1985 (EA issued five months after application for spent fuel pool I expansion at Millstone plant, Unit 2); letter from James R. Mil-ler, NRC, to J.W. Williams, Jr. , Florida Power & Light Co, dated October 9, 1984 (EA for St. Lucie plant, Unit No. 2, issued seven-months after filing of spent fuel expansion application); letter from Hans E. Schierling, NRC, to J.D. Shiffer, Pacific Gas &
Electric Co., dated May 21, 1986 (EA issued seven months after filing of application to expand spent fuel pool at Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2). Copies of these letters are attached.
Moreover, the Staff has not provided any detailed technical explanation of why the design, licensing, and construction of a dry cask facility should take up to six years. NECNP has already discussed the reasons why these activities should not take more than one year. See NECNP Reply at 9-10.
In addition to a determination about the procedural deficiencies of the EA, the Licensing Board can go further and compare the proposed reracking and expansion to the dry cask' alternative. NECNP's testimony and the record in this case establish that both options are environmentally benign, and that, j at least with respect to the dry cask storage of the 870 addi-tional assemblies, their costs to ratepayers are roughly equi-valent.17 Consequently, all else being equal, the NRC has the.
obligation to choose the environmentally preferable alternative, dry cask, reaardless of what the likelihood is that the safety problem will actually occur. See consolidated Edison Co. of New York, (Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-399, 5 NRC 1156, 1169 (1977) (NRC entrusted with responsibility to carry out broad.
environmental protection goals of NEPA).
If the Licensing Board decides, however, that its evaluation of dry cask requires information about the likelihood of the.
occurrence of a self-sustaining zircaloy cladding fire because all other costs and benefits are not. equal, then the Licensing Board's substantive review of the NRC Staff EA must await the Appeal Board's decision.18 However, the Licensing Board may 17 As discussed in note 10 at page 7 of NECNP's Reply to NRC Staff and Vermont Yankee, the-costs of reracking with low-density racks and transferring a significant portion of the existing inventory of spent fuels to dry casks would be somewhat higher.
I 18 If benefits and costs are not equal, then a determination j- about which option should be chosen would require some assessment of the likelihood of a cladding fire's occurrence so as to determine whether the increased safety of dry cask outweighs other, less favorable factors.
never reach that point, given these other predicate questions it
. must first resolve. Moreover, given the practical handicap imposed on'the dry-cask alternative by any furthdr delay in this proceeding, it is extremely important that the Board render as much of its decision now as possible, so that any modifications to the EA which favor or require further consideration of the dry cask alternative can be implemented swiftly.
II. Dr. Thompson's Testimony Is Relevant In Other Respects.
A. The Safety Benefits of Reracking with Low-Density Racks are Relevant Considerations'Under NEPA.
VY claims that because in 1977 the NRC approved the rerack-ing of the Vermont Yankee spent fuel pool with high-density racks, Dr. Thompson's testimony recommending the installation of low-density racks with placement of most of the VY spent fuel pool in dry cask storage, is irrelevant to this case. VY Brief at 6-7. In taking this position, VY ignores the fact that this license amendment proceeding involves both the addition of spent fuel to the pool and the installation of new racks. Regardless of whether those racks are similar to racks previously installed in the pool,19 NEPA requires consideration of safer alternatives ]
to the rerackina. In this context, the Board may take into account any new information that was not previously available to ,
I it in the 1977 NEPA review. Even if the license application i
19 In fact, they are obviously different in that the racks installed in 1977 did not have sufficient capacity to hold 870 spent fuel pool assemblies. The new racks will necessarily be denser in configuration.
involved only a request to add more spent fuel to the pool, More-over, reracking with low-density racks, accompanied by dry cask
~
storage of a large segment of the fuel at VY, is a valid alterna-tive means of accomplishing the " general goal" of increasing the spent fuel storage capacity at Vermont Yankee. Egg van Abbema v.
Fornell, 807 F.2d at 638-39.
B. Dr. Thompson's Testimony Is Not Solely Addressed to Severe Accident Issues.
Both the NRC Staff and VY would have the Board strike Dr.
Thompson's testimony in its entirety.' Even if they are correct that his testimony regarding severe accidents is inadmissible, the parties have offered no substantive grounds for striking the other portions of his testimony that are not related to severe accidents.20 20 VY also contends that Dr. Thompson lacks adequate profes-sional qualifications to support his testimony, and that his testimony is incompetent because it is.not based on actual knowl-edge of the Vermont Yankee facility. Both assertions are absurd and unfounded. Dr. Thompson's educational training includes degrees in mathematics, physics, and mechanical engineering, and a Ph.D in applied mathematics. In addition, he has over ten years of experience in nuclear power plant safety analysis, including specific experience on the safety of spent fuel pool expansion and dry cask storage. He has also previously been qualified to testify before the NRC on technical design and risk analysis-related issues. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, (Indian Point, Unit No. 2), LBP-83-68, 18 NRC 811 (1983). While the Board and Commission may have ultimately disagreed with Dr.
Thompson's testimony on a controversial subject, his professional qualifications were never called into question.
VY's complaint that Dr. Thompson's testimony it incompetent because is not based upon the Vermont Yankee design itself should be rejected out of hand. VY utterly fails to show how any of the purported " speculations" in Dr. Thompson's testimony are incorrect. VY Brief at 6. In fact, Dr. Thompson's assertions are consistent with the factual information that has been pro-vided in the Sworn Written Rebuttal Testimony of Donald A. Reid, et al. (It should be noted in this context that Dr. Thompson l does not allege that the recently removed racks were " low- l density." He correctly states that the oriainal low-density i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1
First, the Appeal Board's ruling in ALAB-869 was based on Commission policy of excluding consideration of " severe, beyond design basis events" and did not run to beyond design basis events not involving core melt. Not all of the accidents dis-cussed in Dr. Thompson's affidavit are " severe, beyond design basis accidents" in the sense that some are beyond design basis accidents that cannot be classified as " severe accidents" because they do not necessarily involve core melt.21 Second, VY and Staff have provided no valid grounds for.
striking that portion of Dr. Thompson's testimony which discusses the nature of spent fuel storage at Vermont Yankee, the general nature of dry cask storage, comparative costs of dry cask and spent fuel storage, and advantages of dry cask storage as claimed i
in the NRC's recent proposed rulemaking, 54 Fed. Reg. 19,379 (May 5, 1989).
(continued) racks were replaced by high-density racks in 1977. Egg Thompson Rebuttal Testimony at 7.)
l 21 As Dr. Thompson explained, several of the spent fuel pool l accident initiators described in his testimony -- severe i
earthquake, drop of a shipping cask, and sabotage -- would not necessarily lead to a core melt. Rebuttal Testimony of Gordon Thompson at 2-3.
We note that, based on VY's rebuttal testimony, it now appears that refueling accidents and cask drop are not within the design basis of VY because the crane used to move casks above the pool are single-failure proof. Thus, NECNp believes these acci-dents must be classified as beyond-design basis. However, as noted above, they are not necessarily severe accidents.
r OCT0 g4 Docket flo. 50-339 DISTRintlTION:
Whtz.F,He ' PMKreutzer 3 NRC PCR DSe11s
. Local PDR Gray File Mr. J. W. Williams, Jr. OPB83 Pdg OPA, CMiles Vice President DEisenhut ACRS-10 Nuclear Energy Departrnent EJordan JNGrac e Florida Power A iight Company OELD P. O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408
Dear Mr. Williams:
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO S!Gr!!FICAhr IMPACT -
SPENT FUEL POOL EXPANSION, Sr. LUCIE PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 1.
Enclosed is the Environmental Assessment on the spent fuol pool expansion that relates to your March 13, 1984 request for amendment to the Technical Specifications for St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 7 Also enclosed is a Notice of Issuance of Environmental Assessment and finding of No Significant impact.
This notice is being forwarded to tho Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Sincerely, James R. Miller, Chief Opera ting Reactors Rranch *3 Divisinn of Licensing
Enclosures:
- 1. Envirnrrental Assessmer.t
- 2. Nntice cc w/ enclosures:
See next page
- s t y --~~ f,, (- 4 (,
ORI.~3:DL (h(h* :DL Did143:DL DELil AD:0YDL 'l1 b PM Weut?er DSells/pn JRMiller 9/. /H4 ny;/84 9/. /84 ./g [' 848 T4# CCIainas L DCfisenhut q !.. J/
l/ cl /na , ., fr4 8410100:150 041009 enn A00CK ob000Jo9 p YUH
CONCLUSION NECNP has demonstrated in the testimony of Gordon Thompson
[
that dry cask storege is a safer alternative to VY's proposed alternative of reracking and expanded spent fuel pool storage.
Section 102 (2) (E) requires the NRC to examine this alternative closely, regardless of the significance it attaches to the risk of expanded fuel pool storage. Thus, the Board need not await the Appeal Board's decision in order to find the EA deficient for failure to take a "hard look" at the dry cask alternative. Nor does the Licensing Board need to await the Appeal Board's deci-sion in order to find that the Staff erred in recommending reracking and spent fuel pool expansion over dry cask storage, given its environmental preferability of dry cask storage and its slim marginal cost.
Respectfully submitted, Diane Curran Anne Spielberg HARMON, CURRAN & TOUSLEY 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 328-3500 June 19, 1989
UNITED STATES [M['
,,f
+ %,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION yk y n "
g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
//
j g -f .
% May 21,'<1986
' O PUBL' 0=MDIT ROOM IN Docket Nos. 50-275 '85 it'.Y 30 Ali 37 and 50-323 N_ )
y Mr. J. D. Shiffer, Vice President Nuclear Power Generation c/o Nuclear Power Generation, Licensing Pacific Gas and Electric Company d 17 Beale Street, Room 1451 San Francisco, California 94106
Dear Mr. Shiffer:
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF N0 SIGNIFICANT FUEL P00L EXPANSION, DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 30, 1985, you requested Technical Specification By letter dated Octoberamendments for the proposed spent fuel pool expansion for each u Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. We have enclosed Based onourourEnvironmental assessment, we have Assessment related to this proposed action.
concluded that there are no significant radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed spent fuel pool expansions and they will have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
g We nave also enclosed a Notice of Issuance This of Environmental notice is'being forwarded toAssessment the and Finding of No Significant Impact.
i
' Office of Federal Register for publication.
i Sincerely, OkJ .
~
'Hans E. Schierling, Seni Project Manager PWR Froject Directorate No. 3 Division of PWR Licensing-A, NRR
Enclosures:
- 1. Environmental Assessment j
- 2. Notice i
cc w/ enclosures: l l
See next page
. o CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 19, 1989, copies of the foregoing pleading were served by first class mail, overnight mail, or fax, as indicated below, on all parties except for the Licensing Board, who will be served by hand on June 20, 1989.
ocoCharles Bechhoefer, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
- George Young, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vermont Department of Public Service Washington, D.C. 20555 120 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 ocoGustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
- Overnight mail June 19, 1989 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ** By Fax on June 19, 1989 Washington, D.C. 20555 *** By Hand on June 20, 1989 l
l ODr. James H. Carpenter
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board [ .
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( CT -t/ >- -
l Washington, D.C. 20555 Diane Curran Secretary of the Commission I Attn: Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E"3 Q$
Washington, D.C. 20555 9<
~
U' ;
Atomic Safety and Licensing l
Appeal Board Panel if r
'i D3 3 ",'
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
, i Washington, D.C. 20555 ;, [$ )
coPatricia A. Jehle, Esq. b Office of General Counsel I l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i
l OGeorge Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau ;
25 Capitol Street !
Concord, NH 03301-6397 QR. K. Gad. III Esq.
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, MA 02110 oGeorge Dean, Esq.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _