ML19225A569
| ML19225A569 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1979 |
| From: | Jeffrey Riley CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907190593 | |
| Download: ML19225A569 (8) | |
Text
i'~f I #9r fj W
U1IITED SIATES T A!O.ICA NUCI2AR REGUIATCEr CQOIISSIGI 4
2 JUN 151973 >3 EEFT3 THE ATQ C SAFEI'T AE IlCENSED BCaE
,., e,. s-.=
- w. a s.a.
In the Matter of
)
b
)
C DUEE POWIR CQ9ANr
)
Docket No. 70-2623 b
4
\\
(Amendnest to Materials License S'01-1773 for Oconee Nacicar Station )
NRC PUBLIC DCCU3ENT RC '
Storage at McGuire Nuclee.r Stacion) })
Spent Fuel Transportation and I?TTERVE'IGR CESGt S RES?CNSE TO AFFIICANfI S MOTION FOR Sa%'Er DISPOSITIOti DJ THE FGJ1 OF TES TESTFRY OF JESS 5 L. PTdEY Applicar.t f led a motion for the su7 disposition of CES38s contedions, May 21, 1979. CEm has indicated to the Board and the parties that its response vou.'M be delayed until June Il due to illness. As in its reply to a s"iln notion by IEC Staff, filed June 7,1979, CES wm. adopt as part of its prefiled testimony its response to the notion for s: am,,f disposition.
Applicad filed a Me. orc =dum in support of its notion and a Statc~'m* of Meterial Facts as to h~nere There is No Germira Issue to be Ecard, May 21, 1979.
Unless noted in the following, CEm is in agrement with the s
,mmt of mate ial facts. In that Applicadt s filing in regard to coniested fn=ts relies heavily on 22.0 Staff allegdions, CESGS s Response to JRC Staffts Motion for Surc:ary Disposition d'7 be relied on.
Applicad 4'n-17 to IEC Staff, confuses their several e Mmntions and projections, fregwd@ based on arbitrary and u= realist,ic czss=ptions, with facts. Applicantis General Argument (pp. 2-4) in regard to "factstt is answered in CESGS s Response to Stafft s Motion (Res.) (np.1-3).
CC:rE'CIGi 1 Applicant relies en Stafff s thora 5h ana17 sis of the enviru W'l effects of the proposM cation. Staff has concluded (EIA 59) that envi on=c=tal effects V E be negligible. This can o r sonab27 be argued if it is ass==ed that I95 V'b
'7 9 o n '" D 6 -
M7 parts of the propoced operation fall within the a= hit of the routhe.
The occurrence of a sc-ious accident or act of sabotage cc=Gd result h m cant and which could not be enviro:nental 4Ws dich w.Gd be =ir b ushed aside as "negligib13". The potential for an act of sabotage is reficcted in a reg:02 tion new27 proposed by the Co=issic:2 (SIET-79-278A).
It is gcT.2ne to this proceeding that the Ccr=:ission, at Icast in the interin until them bas been further research, recognicos th% ca mt of =abctage can have Mgnificant enviradal consequencas nscricus rn irnogical consequences d
in areas of high population density"-(SECI-79-278, Encl. C). It is also assertcd that "the consequences of sabotage in transporten nay be accepted as a valid codention in ongoing reactor licenni.ng proceemo and adjudicated on a case-b7-case basis" (id, p. 5).
The ncu regu22 tion provides for widitional safeguards in-' di g rcr*4rg restrictions. Unless an exception is made, involving spen 1 provini.cns 4-7M47 an a: rd escort, nonstop transit, and travel on =n :1.nterstde or
- cador high;.ay, no +4nrWo is to cpproach Charlotte, L C., closer thnn three
- .iles (UEPM561, h-1, h-3, h-9). Although App._icant is =nder NEC regulation, and is subject to a Turict7 of neans of c:cmting conp'4nn te.Wos are under no such institutionalined cotpulsion. Although regehtion may require a two persen transit crew, two way cw anication, IZA notificchian, premW routes, etc., the bypothetical terrorist, to w li have every opportunity to i
fa d'4-ise hi=self with I;URIL-0561, wi'1 be ur'ar no cer r' don to li=it his force er type of operation in such a way that it can be eCfective27 forestalled by the regulater neastros. 'de ~~-t ccnch:de that, the Co=cission views an act cf sabotage as credib2c,. the conscgtences as sc-ions, and not necessar@4 p ewe' e.
Unde: these circu::astances it follows that the e is a real potential for ncn-neg2igible enviro = ental effects.
$ '9
/
195
~3 -
The potcdial for accideds with sig:Micant env rc=mtal consequences is d
dia:us::cd by CESG (Ros. pp.11-13). To undcrocomInte.nu.w.'s position as to the putadial far an accide% with seriout consequences, Appliend has calcu2nted the radiation le.a1 at a distance of 1 ncter.f9:n the nrin7 center b
li.no of a 360 day aged asscnbly c.c 2 x 10 R/br. This ca= responds to the delivery of an Lg dose in less than li ni= des.(Disc. 'c:ripp. #31).
The inventory of c. =I.ngle assc=b27 aged 270 days is 1.5 ~4774rm ci (App. to Staff, June 16,1978, Att.1, Resp. 2).
Applicant contends "that rerachi.ng of Oconeo U::its 1 and 2 sped fuci pool with "non-poison racks" is the only viable alternativc." On this hnM n all parts of CESGis contdien 1 should be dind.sced. It is arbitre:7 to crwider the alternativas to tr ::. port, rcracking, a net: pool at Nonec, an TS3'I as nutually c:c:1usive. Applicant ccabines the citentives czf trn"c-hdymt and rerceFng (Men. p.7). There are a irr.Le? of embinations of elm *.s Wich have substantisi neit.
The unsettled status of the long tern storage of nuclear generatian undes, whether in fuel or separated by reprocessing, mkos a 1c=cpr tern solution of the Oconee probica esscatin1. The Presidcutt s IRG report puts off the fi-al d=te for the solution of the wade storage prob 1cm ancther fifteen years.
There is no cer: polling reason to believe it wd'7 be an7 iffe ent than earlier d
target detes, and that it w-i21 be put off fin-ther. This being the 74h7%ood, the proddion of : ped fac1 the actuality, and the 1"Mc*.ite trans"cr of :: pent fuel fran pool co(pool a ed4 4 3 risk to the pub 2.ic, accepting Idcrvencrt s edicate: of possib'.e conseqtw~ es, it is cpriate to en-Macr by eat neens adeg,e on-site storage could be devised.
4/9 197
4-A succinct co=parison of alter:ntives is given in the affianvit of Spitalny and Gle=n, Mcy 25,1979. High density rcrmking wi77 provide, absed provisica for frJJ. core reserve, Ich additional spaces. This will provide n iih the exisbing storage capacity at the dte, sufficied spent fuel storage s
space to discharge the sped, fuel generated by the Oconce reactors through June, 2983, based on the curn:=b Duke Power Cc=pany dimhm ge mhnan7a for Oconce, Ibits 1, 2, and 3, accud:g that one hn-core di At'*go e pak4 74 ty for all three reactors is not retninnd"(IEC 16 #1). App 74<-nnt8s cetual construction schedule for a new sped fuel pool called for 3 years and 2 ma:rths rather than the "four yuars" fiequcntly cited (Parker to Dircks, Ap: "!. 23, 1979, 1976 Is?s? Study). Applicc=t aircady has under condruction fuel pools at McGui. e and Catc.;ba and would be in a position to ut4'4::e eq"4mM ordered for those projects at Oconce. Applicant agrees with CE3G that a.fac1 pool could be constr=ted cc=tiguur to fuel pool 3 at Oconee (IaC MF # 1 re codedian 1).
(Dic:. on App. !3). The construction of a contiguous fuel pool an site would save the requircuc=t of an additional W749 y bt 47447 st.ich an I575? would require. There would be no dte acquisition prob 1c. The co:fdguous pool would in effect be an crtc=sion of pool 3.
No additiord r n* hmd74"g crancs or assc=bly noving and poCit4W"g equi;nct would be TCq:Iired, on37 an c temden of existing r'#'c.
AW " 4 n-y wat er coo'47 eqaip=c=t cou2x1 be +*n, from the McGuire or Catauba projects. Under an expedited bn4784"c schedule an additiacal 1$00 :: pac 9s could be nade avai2able, using either ligh den =i.ty cr poison r.eeks, in &4 c=t tine to net ide-fere with p2rdt cpe: atieno This alternative would provide the lowest decage to workers and na bers of the public of any of the enn"n considered (Spitc2ny and Gle=a, id.). A baci::p whd.ch wecid provide addition:-l ficdbility in the em:b of sched"'4"3 probims would be the expedited licMag
~
of the cc=pletoi but um=t4'd rd fuel pool at the AGIS f*14t7 in B rnwell, S. C.
4/9
/,,
It is apparent that, c
,, to Applicantia accrtion, th=t authorisation to roccive and store Oconce fuel at IMuire is needed reg:miless of the outcone of Applicant's request to rcrack Cconce Unit 1 and 2 spent. fuel pool.
Applicant avers that GFE8 s obsemtion of the lack of perfection in man and his devices is not a proper bads for the contedica '!but rather constitutes an overall attack on the 120 regulatory schene. It is the constant refuge of Applicant to declare that Inter 7enor is attacking the dom ~-'nn.
What a convenient my to seek to divert the fccus. The odstence of the Inspection and Enforcement division of tbc IIRC is pr.cof sabstantial and incontroyed4Mn that the Cc==ission recognises that reguldion, i= perfect as it is, cannot begin to be acco plichcxl with pridd decla ations. Applicad is no st anger to enforcenent actions. Applicant was #4"Mabout $2h,000 for failing to observo proper procedure at Oconee, loaving radioactive water in the secondam.y systen #47e searching for innh present in the stec= generator. The result was an overflow of rna3nm-tive water into L*n Hartwell. Within the last year Applicant was called to task for fn4'4~ to use a to:que rench in tightening trunnion tie-down uds rma closure head inpact 74-4ter bolts (Iten B, OIE Inspection Report 50-269/78-15, 50-270/78-25, 5 4 287/78-16).
In the same inspection AppTir-n,t acknowledged that an infraction "resulted fron a personnel errer where the individual failed to adhere to the procedural require =ents of procedures EP/0/3/1000/$h (Health Physi.cs Shift Routines) and EP/0/3/1000/07 (Roping Cff, Barriending and Posting Radiation Contrc12cnes) (Parker to Ot?n47'7, Oct. 25, lo78).
Arplicant after five years of operation st477 had not a satisfactory frisking arrangement (id.).
CIm naintains that the record shows that Applicant cennot be relied upon to in all ways operate in acccM uith regih:tiens; that its mment of spent fuel casks is no c= cation; that it w '7 de nere p:.:dentAo, keep the casks on i
/
,)
d 4 ~" (cno way) of the Oconce reservatiaa than to expose the public to a r
$1,0C0 miles of cask M m n+.
Fu:ther, as CEm has already tectified, IED Staff has w Lc=atically tmderstated the consegmmes to the public of both nor 11 and abno=al +dM (Res, pp. 6-25).
CQ7fE!ZI'ICH 2 Shce the pro =ulgation by the Cw ? ~r'on of anti-sabotage procedures the licensee no longer has the 2ntitudes c7:iimd by Applicant in regarrl to the chi;cc=t of ge=t fuel (Mc::t. p. 21). Tha "n=cous ship =eds of spe:zt fuel...
already... naden 4m,"de all of 8 in the first half of 1978 and the h dich were the subject of OIE cc:rc=t foregoing. As an e:cr::ple of how well the whole a: heme works, although the Oconee n... plantis beta-gmet 21::it 2
Qf 2,000 d=/100 en ", a cask shipped fron Oconec to Cry::tal Rivt:t-bad one het spot of 118,000 dp-/100 c=2, 60 tines the li=it.
(RII Report, id., pp.
I-7 to I-10)
Applied c'nd" th:t CESCit s conte = tion tl at tra=portation hereases the dose to the public is another d::per=issibic attack on the regulations., P:zt baldly, CESG has attacked the Staff calculational procedures in which acw Lions are made which 7ntta to
=rm'4 +iea127 lou dose estir:ates.
(Mam. p.12)
CEal wi22 agree that the adcr;tien of a specific docege level as acecptable util not necessarily ne'm it safe for all i.ndividuals. This is an cT rica227 deterrrined i
mm.tte' and it is cct:=cn knouledge that, as our knewicdge of the.6 on of health effects to c:-:posure increases, our concepts of '4 its are revised dcnc2.
Se thesc =atters as they w:7, the fact re -#-s that Applicc=t has often encuch net opented in accord with the c=isting regulations, thich we find a ::rach more cent:ogac=t'-' attack on the regulatic s.
Apn'w% also alleges th=t there is no supporting basis for CESG* s responses to 4/9
~
u c t/g Igplica=bts interrogatorie:2. CESG cites roactor accident f5 equency as an indication of Comi::sion predictive fallibility. Applicant cobserves that enekn arentt reactors. CEm responds that there have a2rce:d7 boon two cecidds involving spent fuel cash transport. CESG has addresscd A;;3p21cantts fn774h47dty foregobg ani the ineffectiveness of regulation to cog 1ct,eOy control. CESG does not thhk the Cad _.csion wouM take issuc with ::cro da:co as a goal, considering its previous AIARA and ASIAP po=!.tions. The ds se to the pnh74n V'1 nost ncarly be kept at ::cro by requiring A;p21 cant to MM'le its proh7c-n with other neans than spent fuel transchipad.
Applicantis concern at (b) re c=issions in the EIA is anc.rmul (Res. pp. 9,10).
CES38 s anraer to concern (c) Ins also been answomd (Res. pp.11-33). Although Staff is presambly bound to rapport the safety ideent of==galation the a::r.::ptions it has used in calcu2ft,ing the consequences of a mga of events fren ancrm1 transport to se:ious accident c:61 bit a perm %g pattern of undcrat: ting the pos::ible conseqacnces and then treating themn estimates as i.f they were proved facts. The public Ti" be cgosed to w-mtable hn-nM because the ne:,hn1 intent of regulation has not been ren"N.
Applicant, referring to its =ateria2. spec 122, ions as matert,T facts seeks to
=isicad the Board iMoo believing that its case is based on==bst nce and CESGt s on gossc=cr fantasy. The actu: City is that App 21 ant's and Staffts po::itions are based on speculation in regard to future evevos; CEsts is based on cou:?ocr-s,2cu22tien thich, we submit, is =cre credible because nere reflective of past experience. Accordi 627 CE3G :rdr::!.ts it has raised natters =titable for eensiderction and adjudication in this procedg.
41'o 201
~
--S-C0!CE:CIG:T 3 CESG at the time of answering Applienntf a interrogatories responded that it did net idend to raisc =atters outdde the scope of conbediens 1 a:xi 2.
Depending on whether posdble reintnes related to cabotage are viewed as fa774"g or not falling in the scope of contention 2, CEm nay or nay not be viewed as raising natter outdde those ecnstraints. This nca CM n9n action explicitly at:thorises such consideration for pro codingsin progress.
Other than the foregoing, Intervcnor notes its car 21er reganse to NRC Staff in answering Applicant, Sabotage and Contention 3 (Res. pp.13-25). The Inrge releases of radioactive :nte:dals by seicus accident acen
- ni by over-pressrication, by sabotage with high c:glo::ives, or sabotage by the simple means of wating the coolad by the paM intrinsic to the cas1: n21 support the f*nddag that there can be significant releases of radioactivity to the envi:-oment fcr in excess of the a,74c::atica227 understated estimtes of the ZIA and that a properly prcpared Enviromcntal I: pact State c=t is regft: ed under the law.
Affi ed by the writer at Charlotte, N. C. this 21th da7 of June, 2,979 M 7.
t, J esse L. '. ny toyssG I affi that copies of the fc egot1g have been sermd on the parties by depo =it is the U. S. rail, J=c 11, 1979 L
ucs
- a essa. mer y A19 20?
.