ML18079B085
| ML18079B085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello, Salem  |
| Issue date: | 08/02/1979 |
| From: | Onsdorff K NEW JERSEY, STATE OF |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18079B086 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910110180 | |
| Download: ML18079B085 (10) | |
Text
UNITED STA1ES OF Al1ERICA.
NUCLEAR REGULA'IDRY *CCM1ISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board L"'1 the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC
& GAS CO.
(Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit #1)
MOTION.FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL OF Docket No. 50-272 Proposed Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-70
- COLEMA.i."\\lS' CONTENTION NO. TIIIR'IEEN KEITH A. ONSOORFF ASSISTAf.1T DEPU'IY PUBLIC ADVOCA1E Ch the Brief STANLEY C. VAJ."\\l NESS PUBLIC ADVOCA1E OF NEW' JERSEY DEPAR'INENT OF 1BE PUBLIC ADVOCATE DIVISION OF PUBLIC Th"'TEREST lillVOCA:
POST OFFICE BOX 141
. 520 EAST STA1E STREET TRENIDN, NEW JERSEY 79 /0// o /St)
e e
MOTION Pursuant to 10 CFR 8 2. 730, Intervenors, Colemans, hereby rrove for an Order reopening consideration of their Contention Number Thirteen in order to compel the licensee, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, to implem:nt a viable alternative to reracking the Salem Unit One spent fuel pool which may
-~
well result in radiation exposures being kept ':'as low as is reasonable achievable/'
10 CFR 8 20.1.
This alternative to reracldng the Salem One pool entails transshipmmt to spent fuel from Salem One to the expanded pool at Salem Unit 1Wo until off-site, AFR storage becomes available in the 1983-1988 period.
In support of this m:>tion, intervenors shall rely upon the attached brief, exhibits and testimony of the parties hereto at the hearing held on July 11, 197
/~~. *-~ '\\ r._.~ (~~:-~_.. _<~c.l~?
~ ! /
\\
KEITH A. ONSDORFF
_ /.:__ '
ASSISTANT DEPU'IY PUBLIC ADVOCATE i
- .'I STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION By Order dated April 30, 1979, this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dismissed the ColeII'..an' s Contention Nt.mlber. 'Thirteen, which reads as follows :
"The licensee has failed to give adequate consideration to the cumulative impacts of expanding spent fuel storage at Salem :r:..u.clear Generat:ing Station Unit 1 in association with the recently filed proposed am:ndrrent to the application for an operating license at the sister unit, Salem Unit 2.
(See Alrendment No. 42, Docket No. 50-311, filed April 12, 1978 which proposes TIOdifications of spent fuel storage which the intervenor believes are similar in scope to the Salem Unit 1 application. ). For example, the license asslIDles an increase in releases of Kr-85 by a factor of 4.5--due to the factor of 4.5 increase in spent. fuel (licensee's application, at 10). A similar increase, absent exceptional controls, can be expected at Salem No. 2, resulting in a currulative increase in Kr-85 emissions by a factor of 9--alnnst a full order of magnitude increase.
(If similar spent fuel increases are postulated for the companion t.m.i ts, Hope Creek 1 and 2, now under construction, the cumulative increase could rise by a factor of 18, or alnnst two full orders of magnitude.)"
In support of its rrotion for surrmary disposition of this contention, the licensee argued:
"'Thus, even considering the cumulative radioactive released from Salem Units 1 and 2, the off site doses attributable to fuel pool expansion are insignificant... Ultimately, compliance with each facility's technical specifications ~vhich implements the require-ments of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix. 1 assures that the total releases from that facility, including those associated with the increased storage in the spent fuel pool, are in the "as lm..;r as reasonable achievable range (Douglas, Par. 13)." PSE&G C.O. Br26-l tp 22.
The Colemans sought to dispute PSE&-G' s narrow view of its obligations under 10 CFR PART 50, Appendix 1, and 10 CFR S 20.1 by asserting that the actions
\\
taken at each plant (Salem Cne and 1Wo) had to be considered together for their cumulative impact. At page eight of their brief in opposition to Public Services rrotion for surrrnary disposition, intervenors stated:
"This rule, (10 CFR S 20.1) then, clearly obligates the licensee to make every reasonable effort to maintain radiation exposures as low as is reasonably achievable in making all decisions on plant operational m:xles and not merely reliance upon the existing containment mechanisms once it has drastically increased the radiation load in the spent fuel pool.
Ha:v:ing made a decision to increase the lic's sure to radiation, Public Service is i.mder an firrnative du to estab ish the reasonableness o this action in li t o ternatives that would not entail such increased exposure.
not y irnplernenting additional containment measures, the licensee nrust seek to achieve this standard b ado tin alternatives to the ro osed action which do not result in increase ra
- ation sure.
Ernp is a ded, ootnote omitte Co em.ans Br -3 to Br9-l to 6.
The Board's April 1979 Order dismissing this Contention, 'While concurring in the licensee's view that "compliance with the existing technical specifications at each Salem i.mit will assure that the total release from the spent fuel pools *will.
be 'as low as reasonably achievable'" did not address the issue of alternatives to these two pool expansions which would result in less overall radiation exposure.
Board Order; April 30, 1979, p. 13.
Despite this unfavorable ruling, it became quite apparent during the July 11, 1979 hearing that the fuard was in substantial agreement i;vith the Colemans' interpretation of the licensee's obligations tmder 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1 and 10 CFR 20.1.
See Transcript ps. 1136 to 1152. Unfortunately, the fact that this issue was aired in what am::n.mted to an tmannmmced Board inquiry resulted in responses by the NRC staff typified by their imprecision and generally speculative nature:
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 TIXJVement of the fuel in getting it into the cask and then getting it from the cask back into the fuel pool are little bit rrore, perhaps than what you would get in the actual m:ivernent.
I think -- just my estimate -- it would rrore than likely be less than what the exposures are that we refer to here for actual doing a IIDd-ification with fuel in the pool...,.,._.. Tr. 1141-21 to Tr. 1142-5.
Not surprisingly, the rros~ definitive testirrony proffered on this point was provided by Mr. Wetterhahn, counsel for PSE&G Co., in describing the ma.ximum number of fuel transfers that could be anticipated from Unit Cbe to Unit Two, if an AFR does not becorre available during the entire decade of the 1980s.
lR.1151-21 to 22. "Id.: 'Therefore, arr.ore accurate cornparision of these alternatives, in order to determine 'Which will maintain lower radiation exposures, requires an analysis of the manrem exposure from transshipments from Unit One to Unit Two terminating approximately 1985 or 1986, to allow several years of slippage in the present DOE schedule for AFR implernentation.
- Significantly, Mr. Zech' s unrehearsed testim::my while not a defii:rite exposition actually confirms Colemans' position that utilization of the reracked pool as Unit Thro for both Salem plants will comply with the NRC requirements for maintaining radiation levels as low as reasonably achieveable.
Consideration of these factual !Ild.tters may only be accomplished in a meaningful fashion *which will have legal significance.
in the context of the Colemans' Contention Thirteen, in conjunction with the Lower.Alloways Creek Contention pertaining to alternatives.
Unless PSE&G Co. is mandated to evaluate whether use of reracked Unit Thro e.xclusively mai:itains radiation exposures as low a5 is reasonably achievable, the consideration of alternatives to reracking Unit One is deemed by the NRC staff as completely unnecessary. Tr. 1136-12; Tr. 1139-15; Tr. 1147-9.
'This posture renders the alternatives section of the staff EIA a veritable sham.
Of course, in this regard the uncontroverted testirrony in the instant proceeding asserts that such a DOE sponsored facility will be available in the time frame of 1983-1984.
Tr.1009-25 to Tr. 1010-5; Tr. 1040-15 to 24.
Additionally, the necessity for reopening Colemans' Contention Number Tnirteen is reinforced by the new infonnation of major significance first brought to the attention of the parties and Board by letter of Cmm.sel for PSE&G Co. dated July 5, 1979.*
(Copy attached hereto as Exhibit A)
In this missive, Counsel represented that the revised projection for spent fuel generation at both Salem Units would be 56 assemblies per year. Earlier estimates were for 64 assemblies to be renoved annually.
Tr.
1108-11
- to 16. After sorre small difficulty in ascertaining the reason for PSE&G's downward estimate for fuel consumption, it becarr.e apparent that the original figure was premised upon a capacity factor of 80% for plant useage, estimated before Salem 1 opened, and the new one is based upon a lower estimated factor of 71/o, given the operating experience since June of 1977.
Tr. 1114-9 to 16.
Y.rr. Krishna's testirrony indicated that while lower capacity factor: results in extending the life of the fuel, PSE&G Co. had decided to reduce the fuel's enrichment, apparently to maintain an annual refueling outage schedule. Tr.
1108-21 to Tr. 1111-20.
Intervenors Coleman believe, however, even with this uranium enrichrrent a still lower reduction, a substantial probablility exists that/the rate of fuel burnup will significantly extend. the fuel cycle at Salem One, due to achleverrents oi capacity factor much lower than 71/o.
To date this nuclear generating facility has achieved a capacity factor of only 51. 4% as reported in NUREG 0020, Vol. 3, No. 4 April 1979,
/Salem Operating Unit~(One's rrost recent status report attached hereto as Exhibit B.).
Also, noteworthy is the projected shutdown schedule reported in this April 1979 Gray This correspondence was received by Intervenors on July 9, 1979, one day prior to the resumption of the hearings, thereby severely limiting the opportunity for preparation of relevant evidence raised by this major adjustment in the licensee's fuel useage plans.
How*ever, now* having had sufficient time to adequately review and consider this development, intervenors believe that a further revision of PSE&G Co. fuel useage plansma.y well extend the life of the Salem One sfp. for several rrore years thereby completely obviating the need for transshiprrents to lJnit Two.
This alternative unquestionally would maintain exposures as low as reasonable achievable by eliminating both the need for reracking the contaminated Salem Che spf. and shiprrents of fuel to Unit Two.
1---- ---
Eook for Salem One: 4/3/79-6/27/79. While the outage began as planned, startup has been delayed indefinitely due to a series of equipment problems.
Any suggestion that this 51. 4% capacity factor resulted entirely from the plant's initial shakedown period is also refuted by the Gray Book data pertaining to very similar pressurized water reactors having much*longer operating experiences:
DATA AS OF 3-31-79-;"'"
CUMUIATIVE REAC1DR DATE OF DATE OF PIANT YEARS OF PlAJ.'IT PWR CRITIC.l\\LITI CCMM. OP.
CAPACITI DER EXPERIENCE Surry ill 822 Mgwt 7-1-72 12-22-72 58.1 6.74 Surry =/fa2 822 Mgwt 3-7-73 5-1-73 57.6 6.06 Trojan 1130 Hgwt 12-15-75 5-20-76 47.0 3.27 Beaver 852 Mgwt 5-10-76 9-1-76 39.1 2.79 Valley Unit #1 Salem =/fal 1090 Mgwt 12-11-76 6-30-77 51.4 2.26 Farley 829 Mgwt 9-9-79 12-1-77 76.4 1.62 C'.ook {fa2 1100 ¥..gwt 3-10-78 7-1.-78 73.3 1.02 402.9 23.76 57.6%
3.39 Av.
Av.
All data excepted directly from NUREG-0020, Vol. 3, No. 4, April 1979.
As can be readily seen from this Gray Book data, PWR.' s having an average of 3.39 years of operating experience have averaged only 57.6% capacity factor.
'Ihus, it may be anticipated that even if Salem One improved its capacity factor up to industry average, it will still fall about 12% short of* the 71% needed to burn.up sufficient fuel to allow for annual refueling.
This leads to the conclusion that the Salem One spent fuel pool may not be filled until 1984 or 1985, allowing the next off-load to be shipped to an AFR in 1986 or 1987.
This no rerack alternative should be explored rrore fully, however, in the conte..x.t of Colemans' Contention 'Ihirteen, especially in vie.i..v of the new information raised for the first ti.Ire by PSE&G Co. by its letter to the Board members on July 5, 1979.
Consequently, we believe that a complete record on this issue can only be made, consonant with due process,on notice to all parties and opportunity for fuller preparation of all relevant data ~vhich bears upon this crucial health question.
It should be noted that as the record now stands the NRG staff will be providing the following data to the parties and Board, not as direct test:innny but rather as ~vritten corrmunications with no opportunity proviced either for rebuttal or cross-exarr.ination:
(1)
How much exposure is involved for a single unit of a fuel cask being transferred, Tr. 1141-13 to 15.
(2)
Total occupational exposure for transferring fuel from Unit 1 to Unit 2 until it is full from serving needs of both plants.
Tr.1149-11 to Tr.1150-12.
(3)
Total manrem a'Posure recorded at the recent reracking of the contaminated SFP at the Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station.
Tr.1157-19 to Tr.1158-5.
If, however, the Board determines that no additional hearings will be scheduled on this issue, than the record should not be expanded in an e~ parte manner by further NRG staff submittals. Rather it should be closed with Mr. Zech's testim:my standing alone that the transshiprrent to Salem Two will result in less radiation exposure than reracldng Salem Che. If no opporttmity will be provided for Intervenors to test the credibility of new evidence brought to bear on this issue, the record should remain as produced during the hearing July 11, 1979, wherein all evidential procedures were applied to the parties on an equal basis.
CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons., it is respectfully urged that the Board should Order the reopening of Colemans' Contention 1\\Jrnber Thirteen.
Respectfully s~tted,
/. : -*-*
1--.
KEI'IH A. ONSOORFF
.ASSISTANT DEPUTY PUBLIC ADVOC.t\\1E