ML18079A937
| ML18079A937 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1979 |
| From: | Beverly Smith NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909200274 | |
| Download: ML18079A937 (10) | |
Text
1-~-----* --=--~---==-----=~----
~ -
. NRC PILIC DOOUME:wT IOGM
- i.
I In the Matter of
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
)
Docket No. 50-272 8/22/79 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC &
GAS COMPANY
~-
)
Proposed Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1)
)
)
No. DPR-70 NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL OF COLEMANS' CONTENTION NUMBER THIRTEEN A "Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Colemans' Thirteen" was filed on August 2, 1979.
The basis for the Motion is,. 1) that a Staff response to a Board question supports the Colemans' Contention 13 that there is an environmentally preferable alternative to the expansion of Salem Unit No. l and~ 2) projected capacity factors demonstrate that the proposed action is not required. The Staff opposes the* Motion on the grounds that:
- 1) the statements relied on by the intervenors have no relationship to Conten-tion 13; and 2) no new information is presented which would support Contention 13 or any other contention.
. Contention 13 is~set forth below:
The licensee has failed to give ad~quate consideration to the cumulative impacts of expanding spent fuel storage at Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit l in association with the recently filed proposed amendment to the application for an operating license at the sister unit, Salem Unit 2.
(See Amendment No. 42, Docket No. 50-311, filed April 12, 1978 which proposes modifications of spent fuel storage which the intervenor believes are similar in scope to the Salem Unit l application.)
For example, the license assumes an increase in releases of Kr-85 by a *factor of 4.5--due to the factor
- i? 9 U9 200~74
- ----=*----* *--~----*
~**----------~,_;.-*-~
-~-~-*--__;:_ _____
---*--~-*
-*-----~-
-~------_...._., _____. ___ _
- of 4.5 increase in spent fuel (licensee's application, at 10}.
A similar increase, absent exceptional controls, can be ex-pected at Salem No. 2, resulting in a cumulative increase in Kr-85 emf'ssions by a factor of 9--almost a full order of mag-nitude increase.
(lf similar spent fuel increases are postu-lated for the companion units, Hope Creek 1 and 2, now under construction, the cumulative increase could rise by a factor of 18, or almost two* full orders of magnitude.)
As viewed by the Colemans, Contention 13 would require the Licensee to choose an alternative that would represent the least occupational, as well as public, exposure to radiation. They claim that this aspect of Contention 13 was not addressed by the Board's April 17th Order granting the Licensee's Motion for SulTDllary Disposition Order.
On the contrary, the Board dismissed the inter-venor's argument that Part 20 imposes upon the Licensee the obligation to choose the alternative that results in the least exposure to workers.
(Seep. 14.)
Now the Colemans claim that the Board, by their questioning of Mr. Zech, agrees with the thrust of Contention 13.
We do not believe that this assertion is correct. Because Contention 13 addresses cumulative impact of releases to the atmosphere rather than in the plant, the.Staff does not believe the Board's inquiry relates to Contention 13.
Nevertheless, it may go to Colemans' Conten-tion 9 dealing with alternatives ~hich was also dismissed by the Board in its Order.
However, whether the Board's questioning touches on Contention 13 or Contention 9 is not important because the claims relating to occupational ex-
. posure mad_e by the Col emans are erroneous.
To support their Motion, the Colemans rely on Mr. Zech's response to the Board's question.
By taking this response out of context, counsel for the Colemans
~-------*
-- is able to mischaracterize the response by calling it imprecise arid specula-tive. The questions and answers preced{ng the response quoted in the ~otion are set forth below.
MR. SHON:
Just to get a quantitative handle on this, I don't find immediately in the literature I have here the number that might be of interest.
How many manrem of exposure are esti-mated to the entire crew for the operation of a changing out of the racks in Salem 1?
WITNESS ZECH:
Yes, sir; on page 10 of our EIA in section 5.3.5, we have some data.
We are able to refer to that and we refer to that also in the second paragraph of that section.
MR. SHON:
That's 2 to 5 manrems, is that -- -is that it?
WITNESS ZECH:
It may vary of course, but that's a reasonable estimate we'd feel for what that would entail..
MR. SHON:
And do you have any idea how much total exposure would indeed be incurred in the process of transferring fuel according to a schedule such as has been proposed from unit l to unit 2?
WITNESS ZECH:
I'd have to look at the number of Assemblies involved and I don't have that available -- excuse me -- I don't have that information available for how much exoosure is involved for a single unit of a fuel cask being trans-ferred, but if you like we can surely get some numbers for you.
MR. SHON:
I think it would be.useful to have those numbers.
CHAIRMAN MILHOLLIN:
Either that or you could -- if you could state for purposes of comparison that the numbers are vastly different, that might be satisfactory.
WITNESS ZECH:
The actual exposures, I believe, that you would expect near a shipping cask are on the order of a very few millirem.
Now, the actual movement of the fuel in getting it in-to the cask and then getting it from the cask back into the fuel pool are a little bit more, perhaps, than what you would get in the actual movement.
I think -- just my estimate --
it would more than!~ likely be less than what the exposures are that we refer to here for actual doing a modification with fuel in the pool.
I
--~--
~-----*- **-~~-*
-*~*-------- *--* *-*-------
- CHAIRM,£1.N MILHOLLIN:
Viel 1, my concern is apparently the record as it now stands indicates that there would be -- well, as you just testified, there may be more exposure as a result of re-racking Salem l's pool than there would be in not reracking that pool and in shipping the fuel from Salem 1 to Salem 2's reracked pool, which causes one to wonder why it is an alter-native that was chosen that produces more exposure. (Tr. 1140-42.)
A careful reading of the complete dialogue shows that Mr. Zech recognized that he did not have all the data necessary to give a full response. That is why the attached information, as promised by the Staff, is being forwarded to the Board.
As indicated in the attached response, the transfer of fuel from Unit No.
l to Unit No. l involves occupational exposures on the order of 110 man-rems.
This represents a higher occupational exposure than that estimated for the reracking of the contaminated Unit 1 spent fuel pool, i.e., 2-5 man-rems (EIA,
- p. 10). Therefore, the licensee is pursuing a course which is preferable in terms of keeping occupational exposures "as low as reasonably achievable."
The second argument of the Colemans is that the Salem Unit 1 will not achieve the desired capacity factor of 71%; therefore, the fuel will not have to be discharged in the timeframe suggested by the Licensee.
There are two problems with this argument.
First, the achieved capacity factor will not affect the number of assemblies discharged each year. Secondly, this is entirely outside the scope_of Contention 13.
The Applicant's witness, Mr. Krishna, testified that a capaci~y factor of 71%
was used to calculate the number of. assemblies that will be discharged annually from the reactor.
(Tr. 1114.) The witness also testified that there is no fixed relationship between the number of assemblies discharged and achieved capacity factor.
(Tr. 1110-11.) Thjs is consistent with Mr. Liden's testimony
-*-----*---*---~---
I'.
- on this subject.
(Tr. 800.) The change.in the number of assemblies discharged will change the timeframe for filling Unit No. 1. However, the achieved capacity, whether abo-ve 71% or below, will not change the number of assemblies discharged each year.
The average capacity factor of all PWR's is also being used by the Colemans to support their argument that Contention 13 should be reinstated.. This argument may support Contention 9 but not Contention 13. Contention 13 relates to cumulative impacts; it *has no relationship to capaci_ty factors. Again, this argument may apply to Contention 9 (alternatives). Whatever contention this information relates to, it is not new information. All of the calculations performed by the Colemans could have been done prior to this date. Their laches should not be condoned by refnstating any contention. Regardless of the time-liness of the information, the record* is clear that the achieved capacity factors do not affect the annual discharges. Therefore,. there is no basis for reinstating any of the Colemans' contentions.
Based on the above, the Colemans' motion should be denied.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 22nd day of August, 1979.
Respectfully submitted,
~t,'711~
Barry H. Smith Counsel for NRC Staff
-~.--.,. ~----*
---*--------~--------~. _____,_. ---. ----- *------------. ****--*
**--*- ----~-
~ - _______.. ______. ___________..________
~~----.<...------------ --
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATOKY COMMISSION
- BEFOKE THE ATOMIC SAFETY Arm LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC &
GAS COMPANY Docket No. 50-272 (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Proposed Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 AFFIDAVIT OF JACK N. DONOHEW, JR.
I, Jack N. Donohew, Jr., being duly sworn, do depose and state:
- 1.
I am a Senior Nuclear Engineer in the Environmental Evaluation Branch in the Division of Operating Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regul~tory Commission (NRC).
- 2.
My professional. qualifications have been previously bound into the record of the ~bove-captioned* proceeding.
- 3.
During the course of the Salem Unit 1 hearing the Board asked for information concerning the man-rem exposure from the transfers of spent fuel from Salem Unit 1 to Salem Unit 2. The Staff believes the Board's question to be as fa 11 ows:
Given that the Salem Unit 1 pool is not reracked and the Salem Unit 2 pool is reracked, what is the estimated man-rem exposure to transfer spent fuel from the Unit 1 pool to the Unit 2 pool to allow both Units to operate until both pools are full?
-~-- ----------* --* --*
- 4.
The Staff's response is as follows:
In his letter dated July 5, 1979, the Licensee listed the schedule for discharging spent fuel fr:-om the Salem Units 1 *and 2 reactors.
Based on this letter, the Licensee must begin transferring spent fuel from Unit to Uni:t 2 by 1984 to continue operating.
He also may transfer up to 560 spent fuel assemblies from Unit 1 to Unit 2 during 10 annual refuelings between 1981 (to allow full core discharge in Unit 1 pool) and 1994.
The annual transfer of spent fuel between Unit 1 and Unit 2 would be 56 spent fuel assemblies.
The Licensee has estimated dose rates, occupancy times and manpower require-1/
ments to ~move spent fuel from Salem Unit l pool to Salem Unit 2 pool.- Based on these numbers, the Licensee has estimated that approximately 0.4 man-rem exposure will result in moving two spent fuel assemblies from Unit 1 to Unit 2.
We consider this to be a reasonable estimate because it is in agreement with other data we have on the occupational exposure in moving spent fuel between spent fuel pools.
Based on.0.4 man-rem occupational exposure per two spent fuel assemblies moved from Salem Unit 1 to Salem Unit 2, the Licensee will expend 11 man-rem each refueling that he transfers spent fuel from Unit 1 to Unit 2 and may
~
expend -up to 110 man-rem during the time he fills up both the Units 1 and 2 pools.
This man-rem exposure should be compared to an estimated 2 to 5 l/ This *data is being formally submitted to NRC by letter from the Licensee and will be submitted to the Board and parties.
------~-- *
- man-rem to rerack the Unit 1 pool.
Should the Unit 1 pool be reracked at a later date to allow continued operation of Unit 1, most of the Unit 1 spent fuel wo~ld be returned to the reracked Unit l pool. This man-rem exposure would be approximately the same 110 man-rem which was previously estimated to transfer the-spent fuel to the Unit 2 pool.
Because the expenditure of 2 to 5 man-rem to rerack the Unit 1 pool may save 110 man-rem exposure, we conclude that the occupational exposure to rerack the Unit 1
-pool is as low as is reasonably achievable.
the above Statements are true and accurate to the best I hereby certify that of my knowledge and belief.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22nd day of August~ 1979.
a~a a~ :t;;t0 No tar$ Pub 11 c
__ My Comrriission expires:
July 1, 1982 J
Donohew,. Jr.
.~--
~------*~-----.._....___,__ __
.,,_~
__,.. ------~----*,.,. ___
. -..;;,.;.:;*-*--. -*-~*~* ~* *-*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC &
GAS COMPANY (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1)
}
)
Docket No. 50-272
)
Proposed Issuance of Amendment
)
to Facility Operating License
)
No. DPR )
).
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL OF COLEMANS' CONTENTION NUMBER THIRTEEN" i~ the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 22nd day of August, 1979.
Gary L. Milhollin, Esq., Chairman 1815 Jefferson Street Madison, Wisconsin 53711
~ Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Conner, Moore & Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1050
~ Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20006 Board Panel U.S~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. James C. Lamb, III 313 Woodhaven Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
.. Richard Fryling, Jr., Esq.
Assistant General Solicitor Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07101
-~------~-* -
- *C'af( Va 1 ore., Jr., Esq.
535. Ti'l ton Road Northfield, N. J. 08225
- Lower Alloways Creek Tow-nshi p c/o Mary o: Henders\\!ln Municipal Building Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 08038
- ---*-----~-*--*. -. - *--- --- ----
-..:**~
r 1
~--*
~-**--~---*--*--* ---*--*-*-***"-*--* **----
./Mr. A1fred C. Co1eman, Jr.
Mrs. E1eanor.G. Coleman 35 11K 11 Ori ve..
Pennsville, New Jersey 08070
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Washington, D.C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing*
Appeal Board
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regu1atory Commission.
Washington, p:C.
20555
/Mr. Dale Bridenbaugh M.H.B. Technical Associates
_* 1723 Hami1ton Avenue Suite K San Jose, California 95125
,/Richard M. Hluchan, Esq.*
Rebecca Fie1ds, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General State of New Jersey 36 West State Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625
..,....---Keith A. Onsdorff, Esq.
Assistant Deputy Public Advocate Department of the Public Advocate 520 East State Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625
._- June D. MacArtor, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General Tatnal1 Building P.O. Box 1401 Dover, De1aware 19901
- &r.;si/~
Barry H.
mith Counsel for NRC Staff
... -