ML070610194

Susquehanna - Eric Joseph Epstein'S Response to PPL Susquehanna'S Motion to Strike Portions of Eric Epstein'S Response to Answers to Petition to Intervene

ML070610194
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	02/23/2007
From:	Epstein E - No Known Affiliation
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-387-LR, 50-388-LR, ASLBP 07-851-01-LR, RAS 13125
Download: ML070610194 (14)

Text

-RA3 is (a~s-DOCKETED USNRC February 23, 2007 February 23, 2007 (11:42am)

OFFICE OF SECRETARY United States of America RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Nuclear Regulatory Commission Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-387-LR PPL Susquehanna, LLC ) 50-388-LR Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, ) ASLBP No. 07-851-ol-LR Units 1 and 2 )

Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0-16 C1 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North, 16th Floor 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Re: Eric Joseph Epstein's Response to PPL Susquehanna's Motion to Strike Portions of Eric Epstein's Response to Answers to Petition to Intervene

-T E k ?LI-e OVTE February 23, 2007

Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosed for filing in the Matter of PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-387-LR & 50-388-LR; ASLBP N

o. 07-851-o1-LR), please find Eric Joseph Epstein's Response to PPL Susquehanna's Motion to Strike Portions of Eric Epstein's Response to Answers to Petition to Intervene.

R.espectfully su ted 411 4 Hillsdal Road Harrisburg, PA 17112

Enclosure:

Certificate of Service

United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-387-LR PPL Susquehanna, LLC ) 50-388-LR Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, ) ASLBP No. 07-851-ol-LR Units 1 and2 )

Re: Eric Joseph Epstein's Response to PPL Susquehanna's Motion to Strike Portions of Eric Epstein's Response to Answers to Petition To Intervene I. Introduction The current operating licenses for the Susquehanna Electric Steam Station (the "SSES") Unit 1 and Unit 2 were issued to PPL Corporation ("PPL") in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), and lo CFR 50.51, which limit the duration of an operating license to a maximum of 40 years. In accordance with lo CFR 54.31, any renewed license will be of the same class as the operating license currently in effect and cannot exceed a term of 40 years.

The terms of the renewal licenses for the SSES 1 and 2 are limited both by law and the Commission's regulations to 40 years. Moreover, lo CFR 54.31(b) explicitly states that, "A renewed license will be issued for a fixed period of time, which is the sum of the additional amount of time beyond the expiration of the operating license (not to exceed 20 years) that is requested in a renewal application plus the remaining number of years on the operating license currently in effect. The term of any renewed license may not exceed 40 years."

II. History of Proceeding PPL Susquehanna LLC's application for renewal was received by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or "Commission") on September 13, 2oo6, pursuant to lo CFR Part 54. A notice of Receipt and Availability of the license renewal application (LRA), was published in the Federal Register on October 2, 20O6 (71 FR 58o14). A notice of acceptability for docketing, notice of opportunity for a hearing and notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and conduct scoping process was published in the Federal Register on November 2, 2006 (71 FR 64566).

A subsequent "Correction" was published in the Federal Register on December 21, 1oo6 (FR Doe E6-21807 [Federal Register: December 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 245)] [Notices] [Page 76706] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID: fr21deo6-1o3].

PPL has applied to the Nuclear Regulatozy Commission (NRC) for permission to run the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station until 2043 [Unit-i] and 2045

[Unit-2].

The comment Period for the Environmental Impact Statement for the License Renewal of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (The "SSES" or "Susquehanna"), owned and operated by PPL Susquehanna ("PPL") Units 1 and 2 Notice was givern that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has corrected the 2

public sccping comment period for the plant-specific supplement to the "Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)," NUREG-1437, regarding the renewal of operating licenses NPF-14 and NPF-22 for an additional 20 years of operation at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2.

Mr. Epstein submitted comments in Berwick, Pennsylvania on November 15, 20o6 on behalf of Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. (TMIA) opposing PPL's premature request to relicense the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) to operate for 20 more years. In those comments, Epstein raised a number of concerns relating to relicensing, including the potential adverse impact on water supplies. These issues were also referenced in Mr. Epstein's Petition to Intervene under footnote 1.

On January 2, 2007, Eric Joseph Epstein ("Mr. Epstein" or "Epstein"),

pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2..309 (d) and (e), petitioned to intervene in the proceeding in response to the Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing and Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct a Scoping Process as published in the Federal Register on November 2, 2006, (71 FR 64566), and concerning the application of PPL Susquehanna to renew its operating licenses for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Stations ("SSES" or "Susquehanna" or "the Company" or "the applicant") Unit 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years beyond the current expiration dates on July 17, 2022 and March 23, 2024. Mr. Epstein also requested a hearing consistent with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a).

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(o), and submitted five admissible contentions.

3

On january 29, 2007, PPL Susquehanna's filed an Answer to Eric Joseph Epstein's Petition to Intervene, and the NRC Staff Responded to Eric Joseph Epstein's Petition for leave to Intervene, Request for Hearing, and Contentions Re:

PFL Susquehanna LLC Application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station's Renewed Operating Licenses, NPF-14 and NPF-22 Docket Nos. 50-387 PLA-61io and 50-388.

And, on February 13, 2007, PPL Susquehanna's filed A Motion to Strike Po .-tions of Eric Epstein's Response To Answers To Petition To Intervene.

III. Argument PPL'S Motion to Strike PortionsofMr. Epstein'sReply In Contention2 Relating to Aging Management,Inspection of Systems and Components that ContainRadioactively ContaminatedWater, MonitoringFor Water Leaks and Tritium MonitoringIs Without M*erit and the Result of the Company's Failureto DiscloseDamagingInformation.

PPL Susquehanna argued against Epstein's Contention 2 because the Company found it to be "vague", outside the scope of the proceeding, and did not demonstrate that a genuine material dispute existed. Specifically, PPL dismissed questions raised by Mr. Epstein "as a rambling string of unconnected assertions and questions. None of questions related to the Integrated Plant Assessment or any management program." (PPL Susquehanna's Motion, pp 5-6) 4

NRC staff argued that PPL is under no obligation to "anticipate a future law,"

presumed that the "grandfathered" water use commitments were current and compliant, dismissed Asiatic clam and Zebra mussel "concerns", and minimized the import of tritium monitoring (NRC Staff, pp. 18-20).

PPL failed to consider the coordination of water use issues with Pennsylvania agencies.The traditional implications of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

("Pa PUC") policy and regulations relating to "withdraw and treatment" of water, i.e.,

referred to as "cost of water" under the Public Utility Code, Title 66, have to be factored in this application absent a PUC proceeding. In addition, PPL has not established (nor has the NRC reviewed) compliance milestones for EPA's Act 316 (a) or 316 (b). (1)

• Mr. Epstein's Response cured all three purported shortcomings, and now PPL seek-s to Strike what it requested from Mr. Epstein.

1 NRC boards may without further inquiry accept and utilize in their cost-benefit analysis EPA's determinations under Sections 316 or 402 of FWPCA of the impacts on the aquatic ecosystem of the condenser cooling discharge of a nuclear plant whether or not all parties to NRC proceedings were before the EPA. Public Service Comrpany of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1, 23-29 (1978), and later affirmed in New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v.

NRC, 582 F. 2d 87 (1st Cir. 1978).

5

Mr. Epstein's rhetorical Question 7, which PPL sought to have refined, asked,"

What will the Commission's compliance reporting requirements be in regard to onsite and offsite tritium monitoring? How will the Commission account for offsite masking as a result of landfill tritium leachate? Where will the results be published?

Mr. Epstein included a reference to the Disposaland licensing of tritium exit signs, Letter from Thomas J. Fiddler, Pa DEP, Deputy Secretary to Nils. J. Diaz, Chairman, US NRC, January 17, 2oo6. (2)

A basis for a contention can be a reference to a source and an assertion; there is no need to detail evidence in support of it. (3) Mr. Epstein presented a c-ogent presentation related to tritium monitoring in his Response (pp. 20-23) to PPL's concern about the "vague" representations contained in his rhetorical questions. (4)

Clearly, water use and aquatic challenges have been a consistent thread in Mr.

Epstein's representations dating back to the November 15, 2oo6 scoping hearing in Berwick, Pennsylvania.

2 This document was submitted as exhibit 5 in Eric Joseph Epstein's Response to PPL Susquehanna's Answer the NRC Staffs Response to Eric Joseph Epstein's Petition for Leave to Intervene, Request for Hearing, and Contentions, February 5, 2007.

3 Houston Lighting & Power Compa__y (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1) ALAB-59o, 11 NRC 542, 547-548 (198o); Mississippi Power & Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-13o, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973).

4 Mr. Epstein stylistic device of presenting questions was deployed to demonstrate what issues have not been raised or addressed by the licensee.

6

At the heart of Mr. Epstein's Contention 2 are acts of omission by the licensee during the filing of the SSES relicensing application. The Company applied a generic scoping brush to water use and aquatic challenges at the SSES that failed to include site specific, regional and indigenous health and safety challenges. Mr. Epstein has requested the submission and evaluation of absent information and data in order to remedy this grave oversight.

An NRC license must meet NRC regulations, technical specifications, and various requirements in a regulatory scheme where "public safety is the first, last and permanent consideration." Where a contention alleges a deficiency or error in the application, the deficiency or error must have some independent health and safety significance." In the Matter of Dominion Nuclear Connecticut,Inc.(MAillstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3) Docket Nos. 50-336-LR, 50-423-LRASLBP No.

04-824-ol-LR July 28, 2004, p. 7. See PrivateFuel Storage,L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP- 98-7, 47 NRC 142, 179-8o (1998), affd in part, CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998).

Mr. Epstein's "string of questions" relate TMIA's concerns and comments regarding the implementation of Act 22o. These issues were raised by Mr. Epstein because PPL failed to raise or address water use, aquatic challenges or tritium monitoring issues in their relicensing application.

7

Had PPL Susquehanna scratched the regulatory surface in their license application, they would have disclosed the need to coordinate (and perhaps develop a Plan B) as a result of Act 220. (4) It is not logical, reasonable or plausible to believe PPL Susquehanna was unaware of water use regulations. The Company simply failed to include this data in their application. (5)

In March 2oo8 areas will be identified where water use exceeds (or is projected to exceed) available supplies. If the SSES is designated as an endangered or sensitive area, PPL will have to comply with a "water budget" established by the Regicnal Water Resource Committee and the Critical Advisory Committee.

The sufficiency of the Aging Management Plan for considering water use implications, aquatic challenges, and leaks in systems and components that contain radioactive water is material to the renewal of this license because that problems could significantly impact health and safety of the region. Recently, the Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners decided to hear arguments on the potential effects on the Connecticut River of extending Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant's operating license an additional 20 years.

4 Act 220 of 2002 mandates that the Department of Environmental Protection update the state water plan by 2oo8. "The Environmental Quality board will adopt regulations addressing water use registration, period reporting and record keeping (Section 3118), and the DEP is authorized "to enforce the Act. It also "establishes the duty of any person to proceed diligently in compiling with orders of the DEP." (Section 3133) 5 As a point of reference, please note that he SSES is located in the "West Branch, Upper, Middle Susquehanna and Chemung River Basins" Region.

8

PPL failed to disclose damaging information found in Mr. Epstein's Reply.

P'FL's relicensing application did not include a hastily filed Application for Surface Water Withdrawal (6). "[W]hen a party has relevant evidence within his control which he fails to produce, that failure gives rise to an inference that the evidence is unfavorable to him." (7)

PPL Susquehanna actually references the NRC filings in the Susquehanna River Basin Commission ("SRBC") application, yet none of their filings include action plans to defeat external aquatic predators, manage or control water management with recent and emerging Pennsylvania standards, implement a tritium monitoring program or repair faulty and corroded piping. (8)

All of these issues were explicitly captured in Mr. Epstein's Petition for Leave to Intervene, Request for Hearing, and Contentions filed on January 2, 2007.

6 Request to Modify Application 19950301 EPUL-o578 PPL's Letter to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission was filed on December 20, 2oo6, p. 2) 7 Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2),

AIAB-471, 7 NRC 477, reviewed as to other matters, CLI 14, 7 NRC 952 (1978) 8 "In order to fulfill its regulatory obligation, the NRC is dependent on all of its licensees for accurate and timely information... [L]icensees are the first line to ensure the safety of the public." (Petition for Emergenay and Remedial ACtion, CLI-78-6, 7 NRC 400, 418 (1978). See also Consumer Power Co, (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2),

CLI-74-3, 7 NRC 7, 11 (1974) 9

The most disturbing admission contained in PPL's report to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission relates to corroding and poorly performing piping which Mr. Epstein did not "discover" until after his Feetition to Intervene was filed. PPL has known about this problem, yet failed to share the data with Mr.

Epstein or disclose the damaging information during the relicensing application The River Intake Structure flow meters to measure withdrawal.

However, metering of the withdrawal has been inaccurate due mainly to corrosion and fouling of the intake pipes. The intake pipes are mdide of carbon steel, and PPL is evaluating replacement of sections of this pipe with stainless steel pipe to minimize flow measurement meter error...

If the pipe replacement project proceeds and withdrawal quantities determined by the two methods are comparable, then PPL will use the metered withdrawal to periodically verify the calculated withdrawal based on the sum of cooling tower water loss, cooling tower blow down, and emergency spray makeup. If the metered withdrawal is significantly different from the calculated withdrawal, PPL will discuss with the Commission the appropriate next steps for measuring withdrawal. PPL will keep the Commission apprised of these activities.

Act 220. (9)

PPL has publicly announced a significant technical problem with health and safety implications that needs to be investigated prior to issuing a 2o-year extension.

The inability to coordinate with new and emerging regulations from the SRBC, Act 220, the DEP and the Pennsylvania legislature is a self-inflicted hardship.

9 Obliviously, by December 8, 2006, PPL Susquehanna recognized that Act 220 could not be ignored during the relicensing proceeding.

10

The NRC should not excuse PPL's omissions, and failure to submit an action plan to address these health and safety challenges. These regulations have been enacted, and were in the implementation stages for several years prior to PPL's filing. The Act 220 action plan is targeted for March, 2008. PPL, through its own haste to relicense the Susquehanna Electric Steam Station, left these obligations off of their relicensing matrix and must now repair the damage.

The NRC should not penalize Mr. Epstein because PPL withheld information in its possession that had a direct bearing on the issues he raised in Contention 2.

Simply put, PPL can not cry "afoul" when they failed to prepare and submit data regarding water use and aquatic challenges as well as the "corrosion and fouling of intake pipes."

IV. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the Board should deny PPL's Susquehanna's Motion to Strike Portions of Eric Epstein's Response to Answers to Petition to Intervene. R R~spectfullW subn~ii 4 10 /ill ale R~pad Harrisburg, PA 112 Dated: February 23, 2007 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of enclosed correspondence dated February 23, 2007, were served on the persons listed below by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid and electronic mail.

Administrative Judge SuJsan L. Uttel, Esquire Ann Marshall Young, Esq., Chairman Molly L. Barkman, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U 3 N.R.C. - OGC Mail Stop T-3 F23 M ail Stop 0-15 D-21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 army@nc.gov Pi llsbury, Winthrop et al Administrative Judge D ivid R. Lewis, Esquire Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop P1?L Susquehanna, LLC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 23 3oo N Street, N.W.

Mail Stop T-3 F23 W ashington, D.C. 20037-1128 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 klathrop @independence.net Administrative Judge Dr. William W. Sager Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 0Office of Commission Appella te U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Acljudication Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Mail Stop 0-16 C1 wsager@tamu.edu U. S. NRC Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Secretary Att'n: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop 0-16 C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 secy@nrc.gov; hearingdocket@nrc.gov Dated: February 23, 2007