ML19224C696
| ML19224C696 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1979 |
| From: | Mcgarry J DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19224C691 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907060063 | |
| Download: ML19224C696 (5) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 70-2623 (Amendment to Materials icense
)
SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station
)
Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage
)
at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO UHERE THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE TO BE HEARD RESPECTING INTERVENOR, CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP 1.
Applicant's license amendment application seekn a near-term solution to the lack of present spent fuel storage space at Oconee.
(License Amendment Applica-tion, March 9, 1978, Section 1.2; Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) Section 1.0).
2.
Unser present conditic ns, Applicant will lose full core discharge capability at the Oconee Station in 1979 and will be unable to operate the Oconee Station in early 1981.
(Applicant's Response to NRDC Interrogatories #5, 6,
7 & 8, March 27, 1979).
3.
Transportation of Oconee spent fuel to McGuire will provide continued operation of Oconee until 1983 with full core discharge capability and unitl 1985 without such capability.
(Applicant's Response to CESG's Interro-catory #6, October 26, 1978; Response to NRDC Interro-gatory #15, March 27, 1979).
? O (,
g 79070600L}'
. 4.
Independent spent fuel storage installation at Oconee or elsewhere would require at least four years to complete.
(CESG Response to Applicant's Interrogatory #50, April 27, 1979).
5.
Installation of poison racks at Oconee is not feasible before loss of full core reserve or termination of operation.
( Applicant's Response to NRDC's Interrogatory
- 24, May 7, 1979).
6.
Applicant filed an application to rerack Oconee Units 1 &
2 spent fuel pool with non-poison racks on February 2, 1979, (NRC Staff's Response to NRDC's Recuest for Admissions #1, April 17, 1979).
7.
If Applicant's application for reracking Oconee is approved in a timcl.y fashion and Applicant proceeds with this option, reserve storage space created will be exhausted in 1982 or 1983 depending on whether a full core reserve discharge capability is retained.
(Apclicant s Response to NRDC's Recuest for admission
- 1, April 17, 1979).
8.
CESG maintains that the reason for pursuing the alter-natives it advances is the " hazards of nuclear genera-tion...[and]...the obvious lack of capacirv of the NRC to require safe and economic operation through regulation and the inherent propensity of mankind to misjudgment and error and of equipment to malfunction."
(CESG'c Response to Applicant's Interrogatory #13, April 27, 1979).
'qr
)
. 9.
CESG maintains that the supporting basis for the consid-eration of the construction of a new and separate spent fuel storage facility away from the Oconee site, but other than McGuire is "a common sense evaluation of exposure potential".
(Id. #55).
- 10. The EIA concludes that the " environmental impacts associated with the proposed action would constitute a negligible impact to the public". (EIA at 50-57).
- 11. Transportation of spent fuel from Oconee has been considered in previous licensing proceedings.
(Oconee FES, March 1972, III(E) and VI(B)).
- 12. Environmental impacts associated with transportation of spent fuel was the subject of NRC generic rule-making.
(10 CFR S51.20(g)
Table S-4 ).
- 13. Since the operation of Oconee numerous shipments of spent fuel have been made from Oconee.
( Applican t's Response to CESG Interrogatorv # 4_4, December 8, 1978).
14. CESG maintains th=' no increase in radiation exposure is permissible.
(CESG Response to Applicant's Intet-rogatories #75 and #78, April 27, 1979).
- 15. CESG maintains that the dose limits specified in 4 9 S173.393(j), Table S-4 to 10 CFR 551.20(g) and 10 CFh Part 71 are unacceptable and should be zero.
(Id. #75, 76 and 77).
- 16. CESG asserts that with regard to radiaticn doses to persons living in the vicinity of the tr anspo r ta tion
[' O !:
ll '
4 e[s &.
4 O
[s 4'6M
$>#?,
\\\\////
?
/'.Nlf' Y
'% >9 '
(4,l?
s
~
TEST TARGET (MT-3) ll I.U tu n2q 92.5 a
in =-
lllll ~= 3r E33 lwl"l2.2 u
e m3, h k g>=2.0=
1.1 L
HIl L!I.8 I
l.25 1.4 1.6 h
%g.
ep + A I
$a$?j'/Wjl '
4 y %x,,,7/
<p;n o,,
<gy
,4 4::p*dp
,!Wl o
e s, v e
~' bf>, R,;f O.
////
"x(( '%f#.
NNNN [,[ 'D
?
\\yj,,.
Y//
lyks,,
~
\\
IMAGE EVALUATION NNN TEST 1 ARGET (MT-3) 1.0 l:? a m l5 Ef lE
~
l.25 IA l l.6 l
C 6"
88>//
/$*
- w A ea4%
w as m o Q%e,.9 v
4 qu 0
my
(
A *f, O
>k$>I$9
,,,///
0'
- $d[j"
- df;%
% ///
- 'i~'N>
4 IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 5 5 EM 533 lll]m.2-C 2
tp lu
{g ll l,l h,
bb l
ll 1.8 7
l l_*
e
==o
=
D" b
- n.
A 4, seY s,.
.fti
'l y~' f. ej.f's,;9
-:h,
>fl') g?i'
/
Q, *, ^,y w
S
\\
' ",j 3
0 W@
q-route of the spent fuel shipments from Oconee to McGuire, the basis for its contention is premised upon:
the fact that "NRC has seriously misjudged reactor accident frequency" (Id. #80); "the well established fallibility of the human species" and the ineffectiveness of NRC Regulations (Id. #72); the " rational judgment of the facts available by perception" (Id. 973); the fact that there should be "zero" dose from transportation (Id. #75); and CESG's disagreement with Table S-4 to 10 CFR S51.20(g) (Id. #77).
- 17. CESG asserts that with regard to radiation dose to persons traversing the transportation route of the spent fuel shipments from Oconee to McGuire, the basis for its contention is premised upon the fact that "the EIA clearly ignores" the fact that exposure on interstate highways will be greater than for second-ary roads due to "same-way" traffic on the dual two-lane and interstate highway. (Id. #99).
- 18. The NRC Staff has thoroughly evaluated the effects of concurrent travel and has concluded that they would be negligible.
(EIA, 31-32).
- 19. CESG asserts that with regard to radiation dose to persons in the vicinity due to accidents or delay in transit, the basis for its contentions is "the fact that competence and freedom from malfunction can be legislated by regulation
}QI Ub
. but cannot be realized".
(CESG Response to Applicant's Interrogatory #117, April 27, 1979).
- 20. CESG submits that it does not intend to raise " matters" outside the scope of its contentions 1 and 2 with respect to its contention 3.
(Id. #136).
Respectfully submitted,
/
l
/
e
,K, i. &
/ i/~$W ?]/
,J.
Micnac1 McGapry, III Of counsel:
William L.
Porter, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Duke Power Company May 21, 1979
(' G
,, v,