ML022000462
| ML022000462 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Watts Bar, Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 07/18/2002 |
| From: | Hom S NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| +adjud/ruledam200506, 50-327-OLA, 50-328-OLA, 50-390-OLA, ASLBP 02-796-01-OLA, RAS 4659 | |
| Download: ML022000462 (7) | |
Text
RAS 4659 July 18, 2002 DOCKETED 07/18/02 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ) Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328
) Docket No. 50-390 (Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) (Consolidated)
)
(Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1) )
NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO ADDENDUM TO CONTENTIONS OF JEANNINE HONICKER INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.714(c), the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby submits its answer to the Addendum to Contentions of Jeannine Honicker (July 3, 2002) (Addendum). As explained in more detail below, the Addendum should be disregarded in light of the holding of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board), set forth in its Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Intervention Petitions)1 issued on July 2, 2002, that Ms. Honicker did not have standing.2 BACKGROUND These consolidated proceedings involve two license amendment applications submitted by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the licensee for the Sequoyah Nuclear 1
Tennessee Valley Authority (Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2; Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), LBP-02-14, 56 NRC ___, slip op. (July 2, 2002).
2 The Addendum was also inexcusably late. See infra note 8.
Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Sequoyah), and the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 (WB). In the applications, dated August 20, 2001 (for WB), and September 21, 2001 (for Sequoyah),
TVA requested license amendments that would allow TVA to insert up to a certain number of tritium producing burnable absorber rods (TPBARs) into the reactor cores.
Ms. Honicker sought to intervene in these proceedings. Following the receipt of several pleadings filed by Ms. Honicker, in which she set forth facts to establish standing and proffered contentions,3 and the responses filed by the Staff and TVA, the Board ruled that Ms. Honicker had not demonstrated standing, and thus denied her request for intervention. The two other petitioners here, We The People, Inc. Tennessee (WTP), and the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL), were also denied intervention, but on the stated grounds that WTP failed to submit an admissible contention, and that BREDL failed to proffer any contentions.4 Accordingly, the Board terminated the proceedings.5 DISCUSSION As mentioned above, the Board, in LBP-02-14, held that Ms. Honicker did not have standing. The Board considered not only whether Ms. Honicker had demonstrated standing as a matter of right, but also considered whether to grant Ms. Honicker discretionary intervention. LBP-02-14, slip op. at 9-14. In both cases, the Board concluded that her 3
Contentions were due by March 7, 2002, in accordance with the Boards Memorandum and Order (Feb. 7, 2002).
4 While the Board in its decision concluded that WTP had standing, the Board did not make the same finding for BREDL.
5 Any appeals were to have been filed by the petitioners by July 12, 2002. The Staff has not received any such filings thus far.
request for intervention should be denied. The Board did not choose to discuss the merits of Ms. Honickers proffered contentions.6 In her Addendum, filed almost four months after the Boards deadline for contentions, Ms. Honicker appears to be attempting to supplement her original second contention, i.e., that TVA has not adequately calculated the amount of tritium that will be released into the Tennessee River if the subject license amendments are granted. She has not attempted to provide any new information, such as, for example, a change in residence, that would bear on the Boards conclusion with respect to standing. Rather, she cites portions of the Department of Energys Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Production of Tritium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor, DOE/EIS - 0288 (Mar. 1999)
(Final EIS), which she only recently acquired, and attempts to identify faults with the bases of the calculations by the Department of Energy (and in turn, TVA, which was a cooperating agency) of expected tritium releases. Again, all of this goes to supplementing her original second contention, which Ms. Honicker expressly acknowledges.7 Since the Board did not deny Ms. Honicker intervention on the basis of her contentions, but rather denied intervention on the basis of a lack of standing, Ms. Honickers Addendum does not in any way affect the Boards denial of intervention.8 6
The Staff believed that Ms. Honicker had not proffered any admissible contentions.
See NRC Staffs Answer to Contentions Filed By Ms. Jeannine Honicker (Apr. 3, 2002).
The Addendum contains nothing that would have changed the Staffs views. See infra note 8.
7 See Addendum at 2.
8 Hypothetically speaking, even if the Board had concluded that Ms. Honicker had standing, but denied intervention on the basis of her not having proffered any admissible contentions, the Addendum, as mentioned above, is based on information contained in the (continued...)
CONCLUSION In consideration of the foregoing, Ms. Honickers Addendum should be disregarded.
Accordingly, LBP-02-14 should remain undisturbed.
Respectfully submitted,
/RA/
Steven R. Hom Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 18th day of July 2002 8
(...continued)
Final EIS, which has been available to the public long before the March 7, 2002, deadline for contentions. While the Staff certainly regrets Ms. Honickers most recent family difficulties described in her Addendum, the availability of the Final EIS for several years now undermines any notion of good cause for Ms. Honickers filing of the Addendum well past the deadline for contentions. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.714(a)(1)(i). Moreover, the Board, in LBP-02-14 (slip op. at 13-14), determined that Ms. Honicker had not shown that she would make a substantial contribution to the proceedings. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.714(a)(1)(iii). Also, the fact that the Board has denied intervention to the other two petitioners, and thus has terminated the proceedings, further weighs against accepting the Addendum notwithstanding its lateness. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.714(a)(1)(v). In any event, the main theme that runs throughout the Addendum is that the Final EISs dose calculations are based on assumptions which are unproven and invalid (Addendum at 2), or which are highly unrealistic or overly optimistic (Addendum at 4). However, while Ms. Honicker provides some examples of what she considers invalid, highly unrealistic, or overly optimistic assumptions, she still has not presented sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on the apparent relevant material issue, i.e., whether the doses resulting from the granting of the amendments would be within acceptable limits.
See 10 C.F.R. § 2.714(b)(2)(iii). Further, Ms. Honicker has not established that even if all of the assumptions in the Final EIS were changed to her liking, calculations would then show that acceptable dose limits would be exceeded, and that she would be entitled to relief. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.714(d)(2)(ii). Finally, the Addendum also raises an issue concerning the adequacy of evacuation plans. Clearly, emergency planning requirements are not part of the requested license amendments, and thus this issue is beyond the scope of these proceedings. In sum, even if the Addendum was timely, nothing in it supports a valid contention.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ) Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328
) Docket No. 50-390 (Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) (Consolidated proceedings)
(Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO ADDENDUM TO CONTENTIONS OF JEANNINE HONICKER in the above-captioned consolidated proceedings have been served on the following with listed E-mail addresses or facsimile numbers by E-mail or facsimile transmission, respectively, and on all of the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions internal mail system, this 18th day of July 2002.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel* Thomas S. Moore, Chairman*
Mail Stop: T-3F23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Office of the Secretary* E-mail: tsm2@nrc.gov Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop: O-16C1 Dr. Peter S. Lam*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 Mail Stop: T-3F23 E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Office of the Commission Appellate E-mail: psl@nrc.gov Adjudication*
Mail Stop: O-16C1 Dr. Thomas S. Elleman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 704 Davidson Street Washington, DC 20555 Raleigh, NC 27609 E-mail: elleman@eos.ncsu.edu
Ann Pickel Harris Jeannine Honicker We The People, Inc. Tennessee 704 Camellia Dr. 341 Swing Loop Road LaGrange, GA 30240 Rockwood, TN 37854 E-mail: djhonicker@msn.com Facsimile No. (865) 354-4686 Edward J. Vigluicci, Esq. David A. Repka, Esq.
Harriet A. Cooper, Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Tennessee Valley Authority Winston & Strawn 400 West Summit Hill Drive 1400 L Street, NW Knoxville, TN 37902-1499 Washington, DC 20005 E-mail: ejvigluicci@tva.gov E-mail: drepka@winston.com E-mail: hacooper@tva.gov E-mail: ksutton@winston.com Donald J. Moniak Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League P.O. Box 3487 Aiken, SC 29802 E-mail: donmoniak@earthlink.net
/RA/
Steven R. Hom Counsel for NRC Staff