ML20210S892

Response to Util Interrogatories Re Preparation for Upcoming Safety Hearings on Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools.Safety Issues Should Be Considered Before Amend Accepted.W/ Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20210S892
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	10/06/1986
From:	Umhofer B SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE
To:	PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
References
CON-#486-0976, CON-#486-976 OLA, NUDOCS 8610080246
Download: ML20210S892 (19)

Text

_ _ - - _ _

174 #3.Ains cowwonomry DOCKETED U$NRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'86 00T -6 P 3 :08 BEFORE'THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '

UFFL L . ..

00C:. m

• In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-275 % 4

) 50-323 Ouf PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY )

) (Reracking of Spent _ Fuel Pools)

(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power )

Plant Units 1 and 2) )

INTERVENOR MOTHERS FOR PEACE'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES FROM PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC ,

This document is in response to the interrogatories submitted by licensee Pacific Gas and Electric Company to the San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace in preparation for the up-coming safety hearings on re-racking of spent fuel. The response time has been unreasonably short, especially in light of the fact that Mothers For Peace does not have the resources to pursue Contentions 2 and 3 and withdraws Contentions 2 and 3. We submit the following regarding Contention 1.

It has long been the position of the Mothers For Peace that the issue of public safety overrides any other consideration in this case.

The burden of proof remains with Pacific Gas and Electric Company to demonstrate the safety of high density reracking. And, contrary to the implications of these interrogatories, it is not the responsibility of Intervenors to propose solutions to the waste storage problems of Rather, our present and past actions

~

Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.

8610080246 861006 PDR ADOCK 05000275 G PDR MO3

serve the essential function of raising unanswered questions, and insisting that neither Pacific Gas and Electric Company nor the Nuclear Regulatory .

Commission may reverse the lawful precedence of safety over operator i

convenience.

l Some of the safety problems of re-racking are a result of errors in siting this plant: "Diablo Canyon is located in an active seismic zone and the original Diablo Canyon licenses did not analyze the effect of an earthquake on this new rack design." (Ninth Circuit Court of i

'i Appeals, Septenber 11, 1986, San Luis Obispo Mothers .For Peace and the i

Sierra Club vs. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the United States of Anerica; and Pacific Gas and Electric Co.)

1 It is not appropriate to ask a citizens' group to propose solutions i

to an industry-wide dilemna. Indeed, in 1973 when the public first became aware of the Hosgri Fault, Intervenors did make a proposal that would have avoided problems arising from the earthquake hazard. They filed a petition requesting the N.R.C. to halt construction while the ramifications of the Hosgri Fault on plant design could be assessed.

It was denied. By 1978, even the N.R.C.'s Advisory Conmittee on Reactor Safeguards agreed that "It is evident... that the design basis and criteria utilized in the seismic re-evaluation of the Diablo Canyon Station for the postulated Hosgri event are in certain cases less conservative than those that would be used for an original design."

i l

The results of siting errors by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, pointed out in the infancy of construction by Intervenors but ignored, l l

4 l

O

• cannot now be handed back to Intervenors for solutions of convenience to the operator. If there is no safe way to store the waste on-site, no safe way to transport the waste off-site, and no implementation of plans for a federal repository, then logic dictates the adoption of alternative c) offered by Mothers For Peace in their contentions: close down the plant.

Further information and documentation of Intervenor's position will be offered at the actual safety hearings. In addition, and at the very least, Mothers For Peace support the recent request of the N.R.C. by C<.ngressman Panetta that an in-depth, scientific analysis be conducted by a body that is independent of the N.R.C. and P.G. and E. regarding the waste e.torage problems at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. (attached)

Such a study should be completed preliminary to any safety hearings and form the major bases for that hearing.

Similarly, in the interests of avoiding further errors, no final decision rega'rding re-racking should be made until the Long Term Seismic Study has been completed.

Mothers For Peace remain committed to insuring that the safety issues of re-racking be considered fully before any amendment to the license of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant is accepted. We insist upon similar standards from Pacific Gas and Electric Company, as well as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

O .

New information may come to light at a later time and we will supplement our answers.

1. We cannot answer this question until we receive an answer to our interrogatories to P.G. & E. We have asked to see the information which P.G. & E. has used to evaluate the alternatives to reracking.

Only after we receive that infonnation can we determine wh. ether those alternatives have been given serious consideration.

2. Adequate consideration would include a complete and in-depth analysis of the safety'of each, the health effects (long and short term) of each, and the costs vs. the benefits of each. The analysis should be conduc-ted by highly qualified specialists who have no ties to either the utility or to the NRC, and therefore have no interest in the outcome.

3. Dry cask on site Dry cask at another site Monitored retrievable storage Investigate storage at Rancho Seco since it is questionable whether j it will ever re-open, and since it has reracked twice and must have  !

extra capacity

4. It is a legal requirement to consider alternatives under the National j Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the N.R.C. regulations which '

implement NEPA. The alternatives we have listed here and in our original contention are possible, that is,' they can be done. The N.R.C. has just licensed the first dry cask storage facility.

6 O .

5. & 6. N.R.C. regulations outline when and under what conditions the N.R.C.

canmakeano"significanth$zards" ruling. In this case, the reracking of Diablo Canyon's spent fuel pools creates the possibility of a new and different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

That reading of N.R.C.'s regulation was adopted by the September 11, 1986 decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace and the Sierra Club vs. 'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (attached) The court further states that, "Diablo Canyon is located in an active seismic zone and the original ~ Diablo Canyon licenses did not analyze the effect of an earthquake on this new rack design." The court also "strongly suggests" that the NEPA documents, a seven-year old generic EIS, be supplemented.

Common sense would indicate that after an analysis of this "new and different kind of accident" it might become clear that high density reracking at Diablo Canyon is not a safe method of waste storage. NEPA requires that alternatives be given serious consideration; the reason another alternative might be safer ~than on-site high denaio racks at this particular site is because of its proximity to an earthquake fault. No regulation does or should spell out all of the factors that might make an alternative preferable to reracking.

The N.R.C., in 1981, acknowledged that had it known of the presence of the Hosgri earthquake fault before Diablo Canyon was underway, it would not have approved the site for nuclear reactors.

If the site is unreasonable for reactors, and would not have been approved except that vast sums of money had already been spent, then

it follows that is is also an unreasonable site for a large quantity of high level radioactive waste. The Waste Policy Act of 1982 says that if a plant site is unreasonable for expanded waste storage, it will be removed by the federal government.

7. National Environmental Policy Act and N.R.C. regulations which implement that Act

8. NEPA requires that " reasonable" alternatives be considered.

i 9. Hanford, Savannah River and other facilities owned by the federal government

10. & 11. Either derating or reducing plant output would mean that waste was produced at a slower rate, thereby allowing P.G. & E. to store its waste in the existing racks for a longer period of time, perhaps long enough for a permanent federal repository to be opened.

12. We are aware of none; we think the G.E. facility in Morris, Illinois was the last facility to take waste from outside the state it is in, and that has now ended. See General Statement

13. All nuclear utilities have a contract with Department of Energy for storage at a federal repository in 1998.

J

-. - m .

U

14. None are known.

Respectfully submitted, 6%

Betsy Umhofer for Mothers For Peace

e gpeoc@* W UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ocmt Umc In the Matter of ) DocketksbOT6793 :08

) 50-323 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) orrja 3

) (Rera8114#fjip6 Spenthel Pools)

(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power MW

)

- Plant. Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 3,1986, copies of Intervenor Mothers for Peace's Responses to Interrogatories from Pacific Gas and Electric Company have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail.

B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Chairman Lewis Shollenberger y Administrative Judge Regional Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commiss.on Board Panel Region V US Nuclear Regulatory comission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 4350 East West Highway 4th Floor Walnut Creek CA 94596 Bethesda MD 20814 Atomic Safety and Licensing Glenn 0. Bright Board Panel Administrative Judge US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington DC 20555 Board Panel US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing

~

4350 East West Highway 4th Floor Appeal Board Panel Bethesda MD 20814 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour Administrative Judge Mr. Lee M. Gustafson Atomic Safety and Licensing Pacific Gas and Electric Company Board Panel 1726 M Street NW Suite 1100 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20036-4502 4350 East' West Highway 4th Floor Bethesda MD 20814 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.

Public -Utilities Con 1 mission Docketing and Service Branch 5246 State Building Office of the Secretary 350 McAllister Street ~

US Nuclear Regulatory Coninission San Francisco, CA 94102 Washington DC 20555 Nancy Culver Lawrence Chandler, Esq. 192 Luneta Street Henry J. McGurren, Esq. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Office of Executive Legal Director US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maryland National Bank Building Room 9604 7735 01d Georgetown Road '

Bethesda MD 20814

Diablo Canyon Service List Dr. Richard Ferguson Vice-Chairman Sierra Club Rocky Canyon Star Route Creston CA 93432 Dian M. Gruedaich Grueneich & Lowry 345 Franklin Street San Francisco CA 94102 Jacquelyn Wheeler 2455 Leona Street

' San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Laurie McDermott, Coordinator C.0.D.E.S.

731 Pacific Street Suite #42 San Luis Ob.ispo CA 93401 Rita Mills San Luis Obispo County Telearam-Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo CA 93406 Richard E. Blankenburg Co-publisher South County Publishing Company P.O. Box 460 Arroyo Grande CA 93420 Bruce Norton c/o P.A. Crane Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94106 r

W @k + )_/A wAbis u BetsyUmhdfer for Mothers For Peace Dated October 3, 1986 in San Luis Obispo, California

-- =

1 1 Honorable Nunzio J.'Palladino .

l Chairman ,

i t

Nuclear Regulatory Commission i l 1717 H Street, N.W.l i

! Washington, D.C. 20555  ;

[ Dear Mr. Chairman ]-

I' as writing to express my.sericus concern about the. implications of the proposed reracking of spent fuel pools'at the Diablo Canyon

( , nuclear power plant, and to request that a full and independent review I of ,this matter be conducted as expeditiously 'as possible.

i i -

l l 'l i

As you. know,, Pacific Gas and Electric' Company has proposed to address the problem of on-site storage of nuclear waste at Diablo Canyon by increasing the capacity of the temporary spent. fuel storage pools at the facility. The utility has requested amendments to the operating '

license of the plant which involve the replacement of the current spent fuel racks, which are bolted to the floor of the pools, with free-standing racks: capable of holding five, times the capacity of the original racks. The commissio'n approved the amendments without a thorough technical review of the proposal and without holding prior

' hearings on the issue.

[As you know, the Ninth Cir$uit Court of Appeals has recently issued a l stay order prohibiting storage of spent fuel in the new racks until a

' safety hearing has been held to consider the issue. The court found

that the proposed reracking would create the possibility of a new type aof accident not previously. studied by the NRC, because the new racks would be free-standing and could collide during an earthquake. Clear-

'ly, this matter must be resolved before the utility should be allowed ito proceed to address the problem of waste storage at the facility.

My concern is that the issues raised in this case must be the subject of a full and unbiased review before the time of the safety hearing, in order for the Commission to make f air and balanced judgements on the reracking issue I. understand -that despite clear Congressional intent that doubtful or borderline cases should not be resolved with a finding of no signifi-cant hazards consideration / the Commission made such a finding in approving the license amendments. Surely,,the unique circumstances involved at Diablo Canyon warrant the'most thorough review of the

reracking proposal possible. As you are well aware, the plant itself

lwas designed to withstand a " worst-case" earthquake measuring 7.5 on t

lthe Richter scale. .That the proposal to increase the storage capacity pof the waste storage ponds several times over would be given nothing more than a perfunctory review seems to me -indefensible.

'In fact, the Court has ruled that the Commission violated its own

' regulations in finding no significant hazards consideration with res-ipect to the Diablo Canyon amendments. I am, deeply concerned that the Commission's decision may be yet another example of an effort to conceal relevant safety information from the public. On every occasion that I have become involved in the controversy over Diablo Canyon, whether it j

4 1

.i :i .i ,

i I i. .

1 t . 6,! l i

i' , ,

t ..  ! ,

was, becausel of evidence of , design flaws or the failure to consider earthquakes,in emergency planning, I have urged the Commission to make every effort.to ensure that the; trust of the people is maintained.

Unfortunately, it seems thait the decision to grant this significant license: amendment under the cloak of a no significant hazards consi-

doration represents Ibusiness as: usual' ' for the Commision.  !

i  !; .! . . ,

l .

. New that the court has ordered.~ the public hearing the Commission i should.have: held as 'a mattdr of: course, an in' dependent technical -

review,;is mandated. I styonglyt urge jou. ther'efore, to take thei necessary steps. to ensure that: such a: review 'is conducted. I believe that this action will help' restore public can'fidence in the commis-sion'sJcommitment to public safety,

i i

' I I i

. .. ,. .i l

I Th'ank you for your tiime and. consideration. ir look forward to h' earing i from you in:the near future. I- .i

' o  : .;,. I i l , J'

- i .,- sincerely,I .

t. '

,  : I L .I .I 6: .'

i ,

l , j ' i l ' .. t. j i {'

l .i 't it ;

l I

j ,, , LEON B. PANETTA ,

.LEP/ptj  ;

l

'- i i j i  !

I 1

3 , j

' , i i ,e '

l' .

t 6

i ,

p I

i ,

ii i i ,

( ,i t

[ i o  : i -

, i t

I t

i

. i .

I

-[*i ,

i l

l  ; j  !

j 4 I! ! 4 i

n i ,

l. Y I i

• 7 ,

+ + ,

g

[  ! l l' ,

l

! 1 l , 2

]

1 .

~

FOR PUBLICATION FILED.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS , ,

I I FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CATW A.CA1 TERSON. CLERK U.S.COURTOFAPPEALS 2

SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE and ) No. 86-7297 3 THE SIERRA CLUB, )

Petitioners, )

vs.

O UNITER' STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY )

COMMIESION, and the UNITED STATES OF ) OPINION 7

AMERICA, )

8 I Respondents, )

9 I and )

O PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

)

11 Respondent-Intervenor. )

12 I 13 Argued and Submitted August 13, 1986 -- San Francisco, California Petition to Review a Decision of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 15 .

O Before: MERRILL, NELSON and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.

17 NELSON, Circuit Judge:

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace and the Sierra Club 20 (petitioners) challenge an order of the Nuclear Regulatory l 21 Ccamission (NRC) granting operating license amendments for Units 1 i

22 and 2 of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (Diablo Canyon).

23 The license amendments permit Pacific Gas & Electric Company 24 (PG&E) to expand the capacity of the on-site radioactive spent 25 26 I

j

2

/

/

/'/ fuel storage pools at Diablo Canyon. The NRC found that the license amendments involved "no significant hazards consideration" I and mad.e them immediately effective without prior public hearings.

2 Because the NRC violated its own regulations in finding no 3 significant hazards consideration with respect to the Diablo 4 Canyon amendments, we reverse this finding and remand to the NRC 5 ~for the public hearings contemplated by the Atomic Energy Act.

6 BACKGROUND 7 Nuclear reactors are operated with fuel contained in rods 8 that are placed in the core of the reactor. As the reactor is 8 operated, radioactive byproducts gradually accumulate in the fuel 10 rods. Eventually, the rods must be removed from the reactor and 11 replaced. The exhausted fuel rods, known as " spent" fuel rods, 12 are placed in pools of water near the reactor. After a period of 13 storage near the reactor, the rods are removed for some other form 14 of permanent waste disposal. See generally Lower Alloways Creek 15 Township v. United States Nuclear Reculatory Commission, 481 18 F.Supp. 443, 445 (D.N.J. 1979).

II Under PG&E's original license's for Diablo Canyon, spent 18 nuclear fuel rods were to be stored on stationary racks secured to t 18 the bottom of two pools filled with water, one pool for each of l

20 the two units at the plant. Each pool contained racks with 270 21 spent fuel assembly spaces. PG&E's amended license ~ allows the l

22 storage of the spent fuel rods in free-standing racks not anchored 23 to the base of the pools that contain 1324 spent fuel assembly 24 25 26

3

!~

i j spaces in each pool. The change in the configuration of the racks in the pools is referred to as "reracking."

[

1 In October 1985, PG&E requested license amendments to permit 2 reracking of the pools. The need for increased storage capacity 3 seems to have been caused by the realization that federal storage 4 facilities-for spent nuclear fuel rods.would not be available 5

until at least 1998. Under the old configuration of the pools, 6 Diablo Canyon's storage capacity would be exhausted by 1990.

7

, In January 1986, the NRC published a notice of these proposed 8

amendments to the Diablo Canyon licenses. . This notice included a 8

proposed no significant hazards censideration determination.

! 10 Petitioners timely intervened and requested a hearing. On May 30, 11 1986, prior to any hearings and based on a staff finding of no 12 significant hazards consideration, the NRC approved the proposed j 13 license amendments and made them immediately effective. PG&E 14 began reracking the pool for. Unit 1 the next day.

15 retitioners then sought stays'from.both the NRC and this 10 court. On July 2, this court enjoined the reracking of Unit 2 and 17 permitted PG&E to proceed with the reracking on Unit 1 at its own 18 risk. The court further ordered that PG&E not use the pool for 18 j the storage of radioactive nuclear waste pending further order of 20 the court.

l 21 On July 22, the NRC modified its May 30 order in response to 22 petitioners' stay request. The NRC order now permits reracking of J

i 23 the spent fuel pools prior to the hearing petitioners have

] 24 requested, but prohibits PG&E from storing more spent fuel in the 25 . pools than authorized by the original licenses until the 26 3

m , --

T --e-,------.---- _.e.- - - - ,, _m. - , - , , -,.------r -- -.--+.----,y---,-.-.------.-r ---,,m, , - - - - ,

r. .

1 4

/

/ conclusion of the hearing. On August 5, 1986, petitioners amended

/

i

, j their petition for review to include the .NRC's latest order.  !

'> l I ANALYSIS 2 Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 5 .

l 1 2239(a)(1)(1982), sets forth the hearing framework for the

~

4 amendment of licenses for nuclear _ power plants.  !

The Act provides 5

j that "[i]n any proceeding . . . for the granting, suspending, i 6

4 revoking, or amending of any license . . ., the Commission shall l 7

grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may 8

be affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as

! 8 a party to such proceeding." Id. (emphasis added). The hearing 10 i

shall be held after thirty days" notice and publication in the 11 Federal Register. The NRC "may dispense with such thirty days' j 12 notice and publication . . . upon a determination by the t 13

Commission that the amendment involves no significant hazards 14 j consideration." Id.

15 Prior to 1980, if the NRC staff found that a license 16 amendment presented no significant hazards consideration, the 17 staff issued the amendment without notice or an opportunity for a I 18 prior hearing. 42 U.S.C. 5 2239(a)(1)(1962)(amended 1982).

In 18 Sholly v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 651 F.2d 780 (D.C. Cir.

20 1980), vacated to consider mootness, 459 U.S. 1194 (1983), the 21 District of Columbia circuit held that the NRC could not make an 22 amendment immediately effective in this manner if there was an 23 outstanding request for a hearing. This decision prompted an 24

]

1 amendment to Section 189a, enacted in 1982, known as the "Sholly" 25 amendment. This amendment provides, in pertinent part, that:

26 J

_. _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ . _ , . _ . . ~ . - - , , . , _ _ _ _ , _ _ _

4

}

5

/

/

/

/

The Commission may issue and make immediately f effective any amendment to an operating

/ license, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no 1 significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the 2 Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. Such amendment may be issued and made 3 immediately effective in advance of the 4

holding and completion of any required hearing. In determining under this section whether such amendment involves no significant 5 hazards consideration, the Commission shall c nsult with the State in which the facility-6 involved is located. In all other respects

' such amendment shall' meet the requirements of 7 this chapter.

8 9 42 U.S.C. S 2239(a)(2)(A)(1982). The amendment also provides that 10 the NRC shall promulgate detailed regulations for making a no significant hazards consideration determination. 42 U.S.C. S 3

g 2239(a)(2)(C)(1982).

13 n er e R s regulations, the NRC may make a 1kense g amendment immediately effective only if the amendment does not:

(1) Involve a significant increase in the 15 probability or consequences of an accident Previously evaluated; or 16 (2) Create the possibility of a new or 37 different kind of accident f rom any accident Previously evaluated; or

) 18 (3) Involve a significant reduction in a 39 margin of safety.

20 g 10 C.F.R. S 50.92. Although the NRC did consider these amendments in accordance with the form of the regulations set forth above, its analysis of the second standard is contradictory and in direct g

contravention of Congressional intent in enacting the Sholly g ,

,, amendm.ne.

26  ;

1 6

The Conference Committee Report accompanying the Sholly  ;

amendment, which is entitled to great weight in analyzing 1 Congressional intent, see American Jewish Conaress v. Kreos, 574 2 F.2d 624, 629 n.36 (D.C. Cir.1978), expressly states that the 3 implementing regulations "should ensure that the NRC staff does 4 not resolve doubtful or borderline cases with a. finding of no House Conference Report No.

5 significant hazards consideration."

0 97-884, at p.37, reprinted in 1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 7 3607. The Conference-Committee Report further states that the 1

8 standards "should not require the NRC staff to prejudge the merits Id. The 9 of the issues raised by a proposed license amendment."

10 regulations thus appropriately require a hearing before the 11 . proposed license amendment becomes effective whenever the i 12 amendment creates the possibility of a.new or different kind of 4 13 accident. Petitioners have identified such an accident and they 14 should have been granted a prior hearing.

i 15 The change from racks bolted to the floor of the the pools to i 16 f ree-standing racks creates the possibility that, in the event of 17 an earthquake, the racks will collide with the walls of the pools l

i 18 or with each other, enhancing the risk of a nuclear reaction 18 - occurring in the pools. Diablo Canyon is located in an active i 20 seismic zone and the original Diablo Canyon licenses did not 21 analyze the effect of an earthquake on this new rack design. The 22 license amendments thus'would seem to create the possibility of a 23 new or different kind of accident.

24 The NRC does not deny that the specific kinds of accidents 25 petitioners identify -- racks colliding with each other and with 4

26 1

. , . = , - e. ,_..+-.-.g e - ._w- -- , _-_y - - . .-,, . - . -

,c .-

}

.,7-. ,m.. ,. ,y,g wr-. - -*-.m-tv -

--'-u e+ '------'.e ,

a'

. 7 l

I j,

! the walls of the pools -- were not analyzed in connection with the ;

original licenses. The NRC also admits that petitioners' claims i ,

I are sufficiently serious to~ justify a later hearing. At the same 1

2 time, however, the NRC seeks to support its finding of no

! significant hazards consideration by a technical analysis of why

1. # petitioners' claims lack merit. See NRC Memorandum and Order dated July 22, 1986, at 12-15. . The NRC attacks certain of the assumptions underlying petitioners' contentions and concludes that >

7 the new racks "have been designed to meet the seismic force 3 8 requirements previously applied to the originally intended bolted-j 9

M. at 13. The NRC's arguments amount to an assertion 4

j racks."

that, because the possibility of a nuclear reaction occurring in I the pools in the event of an. earthquake was analyzed in connection l

I with the original operating licenses, and becaupe the NRC staff is i

I 13 satisfied that the new racks will not increase the possibility of 14 a nuclear reaction occurring in the pools in the event of an 15 earthquake, no new or dif ferent kind of accident is implicated by i

10 the amendments.

l The very process by which the NRC attempts to rebut I petitioners' contentions constitutes a tacit admission that the 18 amendments do create the possibility of a new or different kind of 20 accident. The claims are at least serious enough to warrant a l 21 later hearing. The NRC's own regulations require that a-hearing 22 be held before the amendments are made effective when there is a 23 possibility of a new or different kind of accident. These 24 -regulations are in accordance with the Congressional directive 25 that doubts be resolved in favor of a prior hearing and that the j

! 26 1

l l

_ . - _ _ _ . - . ~ . _ . . _ _ , ~ , , _ _ . . _ _ _ . - - _ . . . -

s 8

NRC staff not prejudge the merits of a proposed license amendment.

A prior hearing is required in this case.

~

I Because we find the NRC's action to have been impermissible 2 under its own regulations,,we need not reach petitioners' i 3 additional arguments concerning the Atomic Energy Act, the Nuclear 4 Waste Policy Act, and the National Environmental Protection Act 5

(NEPA). With respect to petitioners' NEPA claims, however, we 6 note that the site specific environmental assessment was based on 7 a seven year old generic environmental assessment and that no 8 worst case analysis, 40 C.F.R. S 1502.22, appears to have been 8 conducted. We strongly suggest that any' doubt concerning the need 10 ' to supplement the NEPA documents be resolved in favor of II additional documentation.

l2 CONCLUSION 13 The NRC failed to comply with its own regulations in denying 14 petitioners a hearing prior to making the Diablo Canyon reracking 15 license amendments effective. Accordingly, the existing stay of 10 those amendments is continued. PG&E shall not deposit any spent I fuel rods in the pool for Unit 1 and shall not rerack the pool for 18 Unit 2 until hearings have been held in compliance the the 18 requirements of the Atomic Energy Act.1/

20 REVERSED AND REMANDED.

21 WIGGINS, Circuit Judge, will file his views separately.

22 23 24 1/ PG&E may, of course, elect to return the racks to the original configuration in accordance with its existing operating 25 licenses and may then use the spent fuel pools prior to completion of the hearings.

26

_