ML18081A697

Supplemental Argument on Behalf of Intervenors Coleman to Reopen Coleman Contention 13 Re Reracking of Spent Fuel Pool.Actual Figures of Radiation Exposure During Reracking of Peach Bottom Nuclear Station Never Received

ML18081A697
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	10/30/1979
From:	Onsdorff K, Van Ness S NEW JERSEY, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 7912050177
Download: ML18081A697 (5)

Text

...

{.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of Docket No. 50-272 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CO. Proposed Insurance-~f Amendment to (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 Unit #1)

SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF-MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL OF COLEMANS cmnrnrrml ~lU:*lBE"R THIRTEEN I

STAMLEY C. VAN NESS, PUBLIC ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE 520 EAST STATE STREET TRENTON, NJ 08625 KEITH A. ONSDORFF ASSISTANT DEPUTY PUBLIC ADVOCATE DIVISION OF PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY (609) 292-1692 G-

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT By responses dated August 22, 1979 and August 31 > 1979, the NRC Staff and licensee opposed reversing this B.oard 1 s April 30, 1979 dismissal of Colemans 1 Contention No. Thirteen. Subsequent to these submittals> the Staff by letter dated October 15, 1979 submitted an affidavit of Dr. Donohew detailing that reracking the Salem One Spent Fue1 Poo1 ~-ri 11 result in an increase of the Relative Toxicity Index (RTI) of about 50 percent. The transmittal letter of counsel then concludes by concurring in the proposition, first advanced by licensee, that "additional examination be permitted only if a showing in v1riting is made that establishes a substantial challenge to the methodology and conclusions contained therein. 11 Licensee 1 s Response to Motion for Reconsideration of *---*---

Colemans' Contention No. Thirteen, p. 5 (August 31, 1979).

While it should be clear beyond serious dispute that parties to plenary litigation can not be deprived of their due process rignts to cross-examination of dire-ct testimony or its equivalent, the Colemans do have such reservations concerning the evidence recently submitted by the Sti!ff. Th2 conci:;rns of the Colemans ai*e outlined belo\'1 \"lithout pr-ejudice

• - to their rights to examine all witnesses fully on these issues of k

' alternatives to the Salem One reracking and compliance with the ALARA

• standard with out l imitation to the matters expressed herein.

It should also be noted that while the Staff has filed considerable data estimating or projecting (adiatfon exposures and future toxicity levels, the parties have not received the actual

radiation exposures experienced during the reracking of the Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station, despite the representation that this information would be provided. TR. 1157-19 to TR. 1185-5.

ARGUMENT Documents obtained from the Washington, D.C. Public Document Room, maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Cor.missior. for use by merr:bers of :he public, report t.hJ.t t!":e rcrJcking of the Cconee 11:.lclear G2r.erating Station would entail an estimated radiation dose to the work force (of) 150 man-rem. 11 Environmental Impact Appraisal, Duke Pm.;er Company, Docket No. 70-2623, p. 53 (copy attached hereto as Exh. A). While it can not be precisely determined from these documents what the basis is for the EIS' radiation exposure projection, the fact remains that it constitutes a substantial increase over the 2-5 man-rem estimate provided by the Staff in the v1ithin proceeding. The very disparity of estimates makes it all the more important to obtain actual exposure data from several re-racking experiences to more accurately evaluate the accuracy of the various projections seen to date. Then, such prior experiences may be fairly scrutinized in the hearing process to determine their applicability to the Salem reracking proposal during direc~ llnd cross-exl1rnination.

Additionally, I \'/Ould like to take this opportunity to comment briefly on the licensee 1 s argument that the ALARA standard is inapposite to the evaluation of the viable alternatives to the cumulative impacts to be occassioned byreracking both the Salem One and Salem Two nuclear plants.

'J

{Licensee Response dated 8/31/79, p. 12). It would appear that the NRC Staff has on several occasions taken a contrary legal position, most significantly in this litigation itself. By submittal dated March 30~

1979, the Staff in seeking to support the licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition argued that reracking Salem One rather than transshipment to Sal em fo*o constituted compliance 1*ii th the ALARA requirement (r!RC Staff Response to Licensee's Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Sur.7i1ary Disposition; pp. 4 & 5). P,t pc1ge fi'Je on th2 Staff's Res;:ionse it is stated that:

13. Expansion of the Salem Unit 2 SFP rather than Salem Unit 1 SFP was considered by the Staff and found that the Unit l pool would be full by 1982 and the Unit 2 in early 1989. This alternative is inconsistent with the objective of maintaining occupational exposure as low as reasonably achievable.

Moreover, this alternative would result in greater environmental impacts than those associated with the expansion of Salem Unit 1 spent fuel pool. (Emphasis Added).

- It is respectfully urged that this Staff conclusion in ~arch of 1979 that transshipment was not an acceptable alternative should now be fully explored at the resumed hearings since the contamination of the Salen One SFP coup1ed \*1ith the grecltly reduced fuel burnup <:Jt this reactor first announced in July of 1979 .hGs material1y changed the basis for this premature determination.

Moreover, as part of the discovery in the Duke Pm*1er Company, Oconee NGS proceeding, the Acting Leader for the Radiation Protection Section, RAB in the Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis NRR, John Nehemias, concluded that transshipment of the Oconee spent fuel to McGuire NGS would constitute compliance with ALARA while reracking the Oconee spent fuel pool would not. (Nehemias memorandum dated June 13,

1979, p. 3, attached hereto as Exhibit B). These highly material revisions to the methodology and conclusions which fonn the fundamental basis for licensees proposal to enlarge the spent fuel pool at Salem One rather than use the ample unused space at the Salem T\*JO SFP clearly

\*1arrant additional examination to establish by the statutorily mandated hearing process 1t1hich of these t\vO viable storage methods constitutes compliance with the ALARA standard.

CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the Colemans' Contention Number Thirteen should be reopened.

Respectfully submitted, STANLEY C. VAN NESS, PUBLIC ADVOCATE

. BY: ir/;f!{l(2t/I!

K~ITH A. ONSDORFF / 'j ""'\

ASSISTANT DEPUTY PUBLIC(AO.~

• DATED: October 30, 1979

.)