ML19224D599
| ML19224D599 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1979 |
| From: | Mcgarry J DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19224D597 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907130094 | |
| Download: ML19224D599 (8) | |
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 License
)
SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station
)
Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage
)
at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHERE THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE TO BE HEARD RESPECTING INTERVENOR, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 1.
In a May 20, 1975 letter to the Commission, NRDC requested a generic deferral of all actions involving " handling of spent fuel in a manner other than as permitted by the original license until generic reviews have been, completed...."
2.
The Commission denied NRDC's deferral request. (40 Fed. Reg. 42802 (1975)).
3.
In its denial cf NRDC's deferral request, the Commission directed that five factors were to be considered in determining whether actious involving spent fuel storage should be approved on a case-by-case basis or deferred until issuance of a generic impact statement.
(40 Fed. Rec. 4 2802 (1975)).
4.
NRDC has questioned Applicant's compliance with two of the five factors, vis, the independent utility aspect and whether the subject action forecloses con-sideration of other alternatives.
(4 0 Fed. Reg. 42802 (1975)).
444 206 7907130 099 c
, 5.
NRDC contends that:
"To have independent value, [the proposed) transshipment would have to be capable of solving the spent fuel storage problem without depending upon use of another interim measure.
Solving the spent fuel storage problem means baving storage space sufficient to receive all spent fuel to be generated by the reactor (in this case Oconee) between now and when the spent fuel can be disposed of in a permanent repository."
(NRDC's Answe r to Acolicant's Interrogatories #12-15).
6.
NRDC maintains that "[We) only propose that the Oconee fuel be stored at the reactor site until an acceptable system of radioactive waste disposal is demonstrated".
Id.,
- 24 ; "[T]he alternative we are suggesting requires the storage of spent fuel on site until an acceptable means of radioactive waste disposal has been developed".
Id.,
- 119.
7.
NRDC states that no " proposed alternatives, or any other alternatives", have any " independent value" in solving the spent fuel storage problem.
Id.,
- 29.
8.
NRDC asserts the acceptability of those alternatives which will provide for total spent fuel storage until issuance of generic impact statements.
(NRDC Response to Applicant's Interrocatorv #34). NRDC maintains that only actual expansion of on-site storage capability at Oconee will satisfy this requirement.
(Id., #34 ).
9.
The NRC generic environmental impact statement referenced in the Commission directive on spent fuel storage (40 Fed. Reg. 4 2801 (1975)) was published in draft on 444 207
. March 1978; a final statement is expected in the near term.
- 10. The. proposed transportation alternative will provide sufficient storage space for Oconee spent fuel until 1985.
(Apolicant's Response to NRDC's Interrogatory,
- 15, March 27, 1979).
- 11. Applicant has maintained that it does not seek to foreclose any alternatives, but to keep all options open.
(Prehearing Conference, Farch 13, 1979, Tr. 19, 24, 36-37).
- 12. Since the filing of the subject license amendment application, Applicant has pursued other alternatives such as reracking of the Oconee Unit 1 and 2 spent fuel pool.
- 13. NRDC states that with the exception of termination of plant operations, all actions related to spent fuel storage "could probably bias the final decision".
(NRDC's Resconse to Applicant's Interrogatory #12).
14. Transportation of spent fuel from Oconee has been considered in previous licensing proceedings.
(Oconee FES, March.1972, III(E) and VI(B)).
- 15. Environmental impacts associated with transportation of spent fuel was the subject of NRC generic rule-making.
(10 CFR 551.20(g), Table S-4 ).
444 208
. such capability.
(Acolicant's Rasconse to CESG's Interro-catory #6, October 26, 1978; Response to NRDC Interro-catory #15, Mrrch 27, 1979).
- 23. Independent spent fuel storage installation at Jconee or elsewhere would require at least five years to complete.
(EIA at 52).
24. Installation of poison racks at Oconee is not feasible before loss of full core reserve or termination of operation.
(Apolicant's Resoonse to NRDC's Interrogatory
- 24, May 7, 1979).
- 25. Applicant filed an application to rerack Oconee Units 1 &
2 spent fuel pool with non-poison racks on February 2, 1979. (NRC Staf f's Response to NRDC's Request for Admissions #1, April 17, 1979).
- 26. If Applicant's application for reracking Oconee is approved in a timely 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.
( Applicant's Response to NRDC's Recuest for Admission 11, April 17, 1979).
- 27. Applicant maintains that transshipment of spent fuel would be required for reracking and all other fore-seeable options to the spent fuel storage problem.
0.$ Ojy$f ifYh 444 209
, (Acolicant's Response to NRDC Interrocatories #10 & 13, March 27, 1979; NRC Response to NRDC's Recuest for Admission #5, Ap r il 17, 1979; Apolicant's Response To NRDC's Interrocatories, # 24 and 26(II), May 7, 1979; EIA, p. 4 9-56 ).
- 28. NRDC is not attempting to re-litigate nuclear versus fossil cost issues (NRDC's Resoonse to Aoplicant's Interrocatory #67, April 16, 1979); has not considered in detail the environmental impacts associated with fossil generation as opposed to nuclear generation (Id., # 64 ) ; and does not contend that last-on, first-off Oconee operation is superior to transportation.
(Id., #68-69).
- 29. NRDC alleges inadequacy of purchase power costs; however, it fails to provide any factual basis to support the allegation.
(Id., #68-69).
- 30. With respect to on-site spent fuel storage options, NRDC states that it has not analyzed the proposed alternative with respect to the relevant criterion (NRDC Response to Applicant's Inte" latorv #92);
has not analyzed dose impacts (Id., #110); the costs (Id., #112); the time for construction or the number of spaces that can be achieved by the various alternatives.
(Id., #111).
4a4 210 bh} OS@y/Q
, 31. NRDC raises ALARA concerns d ?epite th e f ac t that it has not made an analysi3 of the radiation exposure to workers of any of the alternatives to the proposed action, the specific steps in the proposed action or in any of the alternatives which result in the ALARA criteria being exceeded, which alternative would not exceed the ALARA concept, or the residual risks asso-ciated with any of the alternatives. (Id., #120-150).
- 32. Applicant submits that there is no significant difference between the radiation exposur, to workers resulting from the proposed alternative or any viable on-site spent fuel pool expansion alternative.
(Applicant's Response to NRDC Interrogatory #21, May 7, 1979).
(NRDC's Resoonse to Applicant's Interrogatory #139, April 16, 1979).
34. NRDC has not analyzed the residual risks associeted with the proposed action or any alternative thereto.
(Id., #143, 144, 14 7 & 150).
- 35. NRDC does not object to the existance of Applicant's maintaining a full core reserve discharge capability.
(Prehearing Conference, March 13, 1979, Tr. 91).
- 36. Applicant maintains that without full core reserve capability the consequences of a shutdown could be (Applicant's Resconse to NRDC Interrocatory severe.
- 11, March 27, 1979 and #25, May 7, 1979).
OUud/ggg 4a 2U
. 37. The Commission has recognized the flexibility that FCR capability gives to utility management.
(4 0 Fed.
Reg. 42801 (1975)).
- 38. NRDC does not contend that the 1-core discharge capacity standard is a necessary standard for either environmental or health and safety reasons.
NRDC has done no analysis in this respect.
(NRDC's Resconse to Applicant's Interrocatories, #152-167).
- 39. NRDC has made no analysis of what acts of sabotage may present a serious risk, the consequences of such acts or how such acts could be carried out. (Id., #174 ).
- 40. The Commission concluded in NUREG-0170 (December 1977) that risks associated with sabotage and the consequences thereof were sufficiently small as to constitute no major adverse impact upon the environment.
Respectfully submitted, 6Lf4$
Michael McGarfy, Ig Of counsel:
William L.
Porter, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Duke Power Company May 21, 1979 444 212