ML20203E266: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:O
  ,              BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                                                                        )
In the Matter of                                            )
                                                                        )
Vermont Yankee Nuclear                                        )
Power Corporation                                        )    Docket No. 50-271
                                                                        )
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear                                      )
Power Station)                                            )
                                                                        )
NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S OBJECTION TO PROPOSED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION, REQUEST FOR COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT, AND REQUEST FOR OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON APPLICATION TO INCREASE SPENT FUEL STORAGE CAPACITY AT VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION On June 18, 1986, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pub-lished in the Federal Register a proposed finding of "no sig-nificant hazards consideration" regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation's application for a license amendment which would authorize the expansion of the Vermont Yankee spent fuel
;          pool. 51 Fed. Re g. 2 2,245 (June 18,1986) .1                      The Commission also noticed the opportunity to request a hearing on the license amendment application.
The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP") has l          monitored the operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant
!          for many years and was an intervenor in a prior license amendment l          proceeding for the expansion of the Vermont Yankee spent fuel l
r l
1  The utility has requested authorization to expand the capacity of the spent fuel pool from 2,000 fuel assemblies to 2,870 fuel I
assemblies.
l 8607240119  860721 ADOCK 05000271 PDR              PDR G
 
I pools.            NECNP has approximately 100 members in the Brattleboro-Putney area, and over 50 members live within ten miles of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
NECNP opposes the Commission's proposed findir.g that this license amendment request poses no significant hazards considera-tion. NECNP also opposes the taking of any action on this li-cense amendment application unless and until the Commission has complied with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act ( "NEPA" ) .                      NECNP reserves the right to comment on any environmental assessment or impact statement that is prepared.
Finally, NECNP requests the opportunity to file comments on the safety issues raised by the proposal.
: 1)                It is clear from the legislative history of the Atomic Energy Act that Congress did not intend the Commission to apply the "no significant hazards consideration" exception for prior licensing hearings to spent fuel expansion or reracking pro-ceedings.                      The Senate Report on the Sholly Amendment stated that:
                    "The Committee anticipates . . . that, consistent with prior prac-tice, the Commission's standards would not permit a "no sig-l l
2 NECNP is a nonprofit corporation of approximately 500 members j                  and supporting groups. It is governed by a Board of Trustees and advised by science advisors from area colleges and universities.
The organization has worked for many years to educate and inform the public about the hazards of nuclear power, the benefits of alternative energy options, and the inextricable link between nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons. NECNP also operates the " Great New England Energy Show," New England's only mobile
!                  unit on alternative energy options and nuclear waste.                          As part of its public education activities, NECNP has participated in i                  rulemaking proceedings and licensing proceedings for several New I                  England nuclear plants.
t I  -_
 
4              nificant hazards consideration" determination for license amend-ments to permit reracking of spent fuel pools."                                                                            Sen. Re p t. No.
97-113, 1983 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3599.                                                                    It is also obvious f rom the debates and hearings on the Sholly Amendment that Con-gress approved the legislation with the express understanding that spent fuel reracking would not fall under the no significant hazards exemption.                                            See, e .g . , statement by Rep. Ottinger on No-vember 5, 1981, that the expansion of spent fuel pools and the reracking of the spent fuel pools are clearly matters which raise significant hazards considerations, and thus amendments for such purposes could not ... be issued prior to the conduct or completion of any requested hearing or                                                                                          -
without advance notice.
The Commission thus violates Congress' clearly expressed intent in proposing to treat this license amendment as involving no sig-nificant hazards considerations.                                                    Pursuant to Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act [42 U.S.C. S 2239(a), the Commission must offer a prior hearing opportunity before granting a license amendment authorizing the expansion of the Vermont Yankee spent fuel pool.
: 2)                  NECNP has been informed that the Commission has per-formed no environmental assessment or impact statement for this license amendment.                                            It is premature for the Commission to make any licensing proposal or to notice the opportunity for a hearing before it has presented its evaluation of the risks and benefits 1
and environmental impacts of the proposal.                                                              Without an environ-                                <
mental assessment or evaluation, the Commission lacks suf ficient basis for evaluating the risks and benefits of going forward with f                  the proposal.                                            Moreover, the Commission must supply this critical i
I
_ _ _ ,_. .m.- . , _ , _ _ , . . , , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _                _ _ _ _ .  , . _ . _ _ _ . . _  _ , _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 
e
_4_
I decisionmaking document to the public so that it can evaluate and respond to the basis for the decision.
NECNP wishes to place the Commission on notice that it will pursue its rights to enforce the requirements of the National En-vironmental Policy Act, including the injunction of any licensing action that does not comply with NEPA. NECNP also reserves the right to submit comments on any environmental statement or as-sessment that is issued.
: 3)      NECNP has recently received information which leads it to believe that the expansion of the Vermont Yankee spent fuel pools could significantly increase the risk and consequences of an accident at that plant, due to the vulnerability of the pools to cracking or failure in the event of a containment failure.
Section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act requires the Commission to offer the opportunity for a hearing on the issuance of license amendments. Generally, those hearings are adjudicatory in na-ture. In this instance, however, NECNP requests the opportunity to submit written comments on the safety risks presented by the proposed expansion of the Vermont Yankee spent fuel pools. Be-cause the license amendment application raises complex technical i
 
S issues, NECNP seeks a period of 60 days for the preparation and submission of those comments.
Respectfully submitted, Diane Curran HARMON & WEISS 2001 S Street, N.W.
Suite 430 Washington, D. C. 20009 (202) 328-3500 July 21, 1986 i}}

Revision as of 23:41, 31 December 2020

Objection to Proposed Finding of Nshc,Request for Compliance W/Nepa & Request for Opportunity to Comment on Application to Increase Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Facility
ML20203E266
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 07/21/1986
From: Curran D
HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To:
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20203E241 List:
References
NUDOCS 8607240119
Download: ML20203E266 (5)
v • d • e


Text

O

, BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

In the Matter of )

)

Vermont Yankee Nuclear )

Power Corporation ) Docket No. 50-271

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear )

Power Station) )

)

NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S OBJECTION TO PROPOSED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION, REQUEST FOR COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT, AND REQUEST FOR OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON APPLICATION TO INCREASE SPENT FUEL STORAGE CAPACITY AT VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION On June 18, 1986, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pub-lished in the Federal Register a proposed finding of "no sig-nificant hazards consideration" regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation's application for a license amendment which would authorize the expansion of the Vermont Yankee spent fuel

pool. 51 Fed. Re g. 2 2,245 (June 18,1986) .1 The Commission also noticed the opportunity to request a hearing on the license amendment application.

The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP") has l monitored the operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant

! for many years and was an intervenor in a prior license amendment l proceeding for the expansion of the Vermont Yankee spent fuel l

r l

1 The utility has requested authorization to expand the capacity of the spent fuel pool from 2,000 fuel assemblies to 2,870 fuel I

assemblies.

l 8607240119 860721 ADOCK 05000271 PDR PDR G

I pools. NECNP has approximately 100 members in the Brattleboro-Putney area, and over 50 members live within ten miles of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.

NECNP opposes the Commission's proposed findir.g that this license amendment request poses no significant hazards considera-tion. NECNP also opposes the taking of any action on this li-cense amendment application unless and until the Commission has complied with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act ( "NEPA" ) . NECNP reserves the right to comment on any environmental assessment or impact statement that is prepared.

Finally, NECNP requests the opportunity to file comments on the safety issues raised by the proposal.

1) It is clear from the legislative history of the Atomic Energy Act that Congress did not intend the Commission to apply the "no significant hazards consideration" exception for prior licensing hearings to spent fuel expansion or reracking pro-ceedings. The Senate Report on the Sholly Amendment stated that:

"The Committee anticipates . . . that, consistent with prior prac-tice, the Commission's standards would not permit a "no sig-l l

2 NECNP is a nonprofit corporation of approximately 500 members j and supporting groups. It is governed by a Board of Trustees and advised by science advisors from area colleges and universities.

The organization has worked for many years to educate and inform the public about the hazards of nuclear power, the benefits of alternative energy options, and the inextricable link between nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons. NECNP also operates the " Great New England Energy Show," New England's only mobile

! unit on alternative energy options and nuclear waste. As part of its public education activities, NECNP has participated in i rulemaking proceedings and licensing proceedings for several New I England nuclear plants.

t I -_

4 nificant hazards consideration" determination for license amend-ments to permit reracking of spent fuel pools." Sen. Re p t. No.97-113, 1983 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3599. It is also obvious f rom the debates and hearings on the Sholly Amendment that Con-gress approved the legislation with the express understanding that spent fuel reracking would not fall under the no significant hazards exemption. See, e .g . , statement by Rep. Ottinger on No-vember 5, 1981, that the expansion of spent fuel pools and the reracking of the spent fuel pools are clearly matters which raise significant hazards considerations, and thus amendments for such purposes could not ... be issued prior to the conduct or completion of any requested hearing or -

without advance notice.

The Commission thus violates Congress' clearly expressed intent in proposing to treat this license amendment as involving no sig-nificant hazards considerations. Pursuant to Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act [42 U.S.C. S 2239(a), the Commission must offer a prior hearing opportunity before granting a license amendment authorizing the expansion of the Vermont Yankee spent fuel pool.

2) NECNP has been informed that the Commission has per-formed no environmental assessment or impact statement for this license amendment. It is premature for the Commission to make any licensing proposal or to notice the opportunity for a hearing before it has presented its evaluation of the risks and benefits 1

and environmental impacts of the proposal. Without an environ- <

mental assessment or evaluation, the Commission lacks suf ficient basis for evaluating the risks and benefits of going forward with f the proposal. Moreover, the Commission must supply this critical i

I

_ _ _ ,_. .m.- . , _ , _ _ , . . , , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ , _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

e

_4_

I decisionmaking document to the public so that it can evaluate and respond to the basis for the decision.

NECNP wishes to place the Commission on notice that it will pursue its rights to enforce the requirements of the National En-vironmental Policy Act, including the injunction of any licensing action that does not comply with NEPA. NECNP also reserves the right to submit comments on any environmental statement or as-sessment that is issued.

3) NECNP has recently received information which leads it to believe that the expansion of the Vermont Yankee spent fuel pools could significantly increase the risk and consequences of an accident at that plant, due to the vulnerability of the pools to cracking or failure in the event of a containment failure.

Section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act requires the Commission to offer the opportunity for a hearing on the issuance of license amendments. Generally, those hearings are adjudicatory in na-ture. In this instance, however, NECNP requests the opportunity to submit written comments on the safety risks presented by the proposed expansion of the Vermont Yankee spent fuel pools. Be-cause the license amendment application raises complex technical i

S issues, NECNP seeks a period of 60 days for the preparation and submission of those comments.

Respectfully submitted, Diane Curran HARMON & WEISS 2001 S Street, N.W.

Suite 430 Washington, D. C. 20009 (202) 328-3500 July 21, 1986 i

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20203E266&oldid=3068734"