ML19259C493
| ML19259C493 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1979 |
| From: | Roisman A National Resources Defense Council |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906220194 | |
| Download: ML19259C493 (17) | |
Text
'
NRC PUBLIC DOCU.'.!E'E 1:00M
//
CME' 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g 3 6O> 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W@
4 h
In The Matter of
)
g
)
Nt DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-2623
)
(Amendment to Operating License SNM-1773 )
for Oconee Spent Fuel Transportation and )
Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION WITH RESPECT TO NRDC CONTENTION #4 The basic thrust of our contention is that the proposed action does not assure that releases to workers will be kept as low as reasonably achievable.
Both the Staff and the licensee have prepared an analysis of the impact on workers of the proposed action but neither has made an attempt to demonstrate that the worker exposures are as low as reasonably achievable.
Such an analysis would require a thorough investigation of the worker exposures associated with the proposed action and alter-natives to it.
In a recent decision in a virtually identical case, the ASLB concluded (Commonwealth Edison Co. (Dresden/ Quad Cities Transshipment), Memorandum and Order (April 24, 1979),
Slip Op.
p.
6):
Under 10 CFR S 20.1(c), licensees whose emissions fall within the range permitted by other sections of Part 20 are nevertheless
-obliged, by way of an additional requirement, to reduce their emissions to a level which is "as low as reasonably achievable."
In the Board's view, this additional require-ment would be meaningless unless the effect 2281 103 7906220l9$/
2 upon health of emissions produced by the proposed action were cc:apared to the ef fect which would be produced by an alternative, with, of course, a corresponding comparison between the costs of the alternative and the costs of the proposed action.
Only by com-paring alternatives is it possible to say whether a given level of emissions is or is not as " low" as " reasonable" in light of the prevailing technology.
If an alternative means of achieving the same result as the proposed action produces lower emissions than the proposed action, then the level of emissions produced by the proposed action is not as low as reasonably achievable unless it would not be reasonable to adopt the alternative.
It is no surprise that 10 CFR 2 0.10 (c ) specifically provides that cne must "take into account the state of technology, and the economics of improvements in relation
.o b }efits to the public health and eafety.
Accord, Northern States Power Co.
(Prairie Island) and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Coro., ALA3-455, 7 NRC 41, 56-62 (majority and concurring opinions).
For its part, the licensee provides a statement which it alleges demonstrates that the transshipment itself will use procedures which keep transshipment releases ALARA.
Duke Power Company Information Supporting Storage of Oconee Spent Fuel at McGuire, March 9, 1978, p.
9-1.
There is no comparison of the expected exposures to alternative methods for coping with the spent fuel storage problem.
The Staff, on the other hand, purports in its environmental impact appraisal to look at alternatives to transshipment but fails to conduct a rigorous and independent analysis, relying instead on undisclosed licensee analyses.
For instance, the Staff accepts a licensee estimate that re-racking of Oconee Units 1 and 2 will take 15 months, involve 150 man-rems, and require extensive transshipment.
Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA),
p.
53.
The licensee, in 2281 104
3 an application for re-racking at Units 1 and 2, estimates the actual re-racking will only take 6.5 months, with 125.5 man-rem exposures and no transshipment required.
This conflicting body of information certainly demonstrates that the kind of rigorous, independent analysis of ALARA considerations required by the NRC regulations has not occurred.
Significantly the Staff analysis of alternatives demonstrates no effort to really cope with the actual possi-bilities.
Assuming for a moment that merely shutting down Cconee, which involves the lowest exposures, is not feasible (although at the moment of this writing the Commission has crdered just such a move), there are several alternatives which must be considered and several aspects of the proposed action which must be considered in order to determine what is ALARA.
First, a judgment must be made as to when, if at all, off-site storage for spent fuel will be available.
If the off-site storage is assumed to be a permanent repository, then the additional worker exposures for off-site storage can be a given for all options since the prevailing NRC law is that such a repository will exist.
See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.,
ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520.
If the off-site storage includes an interim storage facility such as an AFR, thun the worker expo-sures involved in that effort must be compared with retaining spent fuel on site.
Second, on-site storage includes using existing racks, re-racking as proposed by the licensee for 2281 105
4 Oconee 1 and 2, maximum density racks, so-called poison racks (which are rejected by the licensee as taking too long),
densification of the fuel rod bundles and construction of additional spent fuel storage space at the site.
- Finally, these on-site expansion possibilities, to the extent time constraints present difficulties, need to be compared to limited transshipment to another reactor or limited use of fuel casks (to be purchased or borrowed) for on-site storage pending completion of on-site expansion.
These analyses would necessarily include consideration of total exposures to workers at the site and to workers and the public along the route and at the recipient site where transshipment is involved.
Of course, as required by 5 20.10(c),
the comparisons would also include economic considerations.
For instance, an additional 50 person-rems associated with on-site expansion over use of an AFR would have to be balanced against the substantial economic cost of use of an AFR.
In addition, the probability that an AFR would even be available would have to be compared to the availability of on-site self-help.
In March of this year, the Staff published a proposed Revision 4 to Regulatory Guide 8.8 which deals with information relevant to ensuring that occupational exposures are kept as lou as reasonably achievable.
The depth of information required there and the kind of analyses required are in strong contrast to what the Staff and licensee have done here.
In the draft revision, the Staff summarizes the principal concepts which 2281 106
3 an application for re-racking at Units 1 and 2, estimates the actual re-racking will only take 6.5 months, with 125.5 man-rem exposures and no transshipment required.
This conflicting body of information certainly demonstrates that the kind of rigorous, independent analysis of ALARA considerations required by the NRC regulations has not occurred.
'Significantly the Staff analysis of alternatives demonstrates no effort to really cope with the actual possi-bilities.
Assuming for a moment that merely shutting down Oconee, which involves the lowest exposures, is not feasible (although at the moment of this writing the Commission has ordered just such a move), there are several alternatives which must be considered and several aspects of the proposed action which must be considered in order to determine what is ALARA.
First, a judgment must be made as to when, if at all, off-site storage for spent fuel will be available.
If the off-site storage is assumed to be a permanent repository, tnen the additional worker exposures for off-site storage can be a given for all options since the prevailing NRC law is that such a repository will exist.
See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.,
ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520.
If the off-site storage includes an interim storage facility such as an AFR, than the worker expo-sures involved in that ef" ort must be compared with retaining 4
spent fuel on site.
Second, on-site storage includes using existing racks, re-racking as proposed by the licensee for 2281 107
4 Oconee 1 and 2, maximum density racks, so-called poison racks (which are rejected by the licensee as taking too long),
densification of the fuel rod bundles and construction of additional spent fuel storage space at the site.
- Finally, these on-site expansion possibilities, to the extent time constraints present difficulties, need to be compared to limited transshipment to another reactor or limited use of fuel casks (to be purchased or borrowed) for on-site storage pending completion of on-site expansion.
These analyses would necessarily include consideration of total exposures to workers at the site and to workers and the public along the route and at the recipient site where transshipment is involved.
Of course, as required by 5 20.10(c),
the comparisons would also include economic considerations.
For instance, an additional 50 person-rems associated with on-site expansion over use of an AFR would have to be balanced against the substantial economic cost of use of an AFF.
In addition, the probability that an AFR would even be Tvailable would have to be compared to the availability of on-site self-help.
In March of this year, the Staff published a proposed Revision 4 to Regulatory Guide 8.8 which deals with information relevant to ensuring that occupational exposures are kept as lot as reasonably achievable.
The depth of information required there and the kind of analyses required are in strong contrast to what the Staff and licensee have done here.
In the draft revision, the Staff summarizes the principal concepts which 2281 109
5 make strict adherence to the ALARA concept essential (Draft Revision 4, p. 3):
Under the linear nonthreshold concept, restricting the doses to individuals at a fracica of the applicable limit would be inappropriate if such action would result in the exposure of more persons to radiation and would increase the total man-rem dose.
The radiation protection [ footnote omitted]
community has recognized for many years that it is prudent to avoid unnecessary exposure to radiati'n and to maintain doses ALARA.
In addition to reduced biological risks, such practices may avoid costs for extra personnel to perform maintenance activities and avoid nonprcductive plant shutdown time caused by restrictions on station personnel working in radiation areas.
In the attached affidavit, Dr. Cochran goes into detail in describing the minimum factors which must be included in conducting an adequate ALARA analysis.
In York Committee for a Safe Environment v.
N.R.C.,
527 F.2d 812 (D.C. Cir. 1975),
the court found that due to the special knowledge and expertise of the licensee and the Staff the burden was on them to produce the necessary ALARA (in that case it was still called ALAP) analysis.
It is indisputable here that the thorough ALARA analysis required prior to taking any action on spent fuel handling has not been made.
We therefore urge thiJ Board to issue an order requiring that the ALARA analysis be completed and, as appropritte, that discovery be allowed on it, prior to completion of furthar proceedings in this case.
We believe that a proper ALARA analysis will demonstrate that maximum on-site spent fuel storage expansion meets the ALARA requirements and that 2281 109
6 transshipment does not.
Respectfully submitted, i
!c
{} q m
sbkkh 6 (1 17 4 d,A A d #
Anthony 3. Foisman Natural Resources Defense Council 917-15th Street, hv Washington, D.C.
20005 (202)737-5000 Dated:
May 1, 1979 2281 110
94
/7 C
~*r r3 wuc 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Qy J lgggy 7 4
h c m w is s
.y Dodeles t $srw>
same In The Matter Of
)
4
)
N P
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-2623
)
(Amendment to Operating License SNM-1773 )
for oconee Spent Fuel Transportation and )
Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS B.
COCHRAN, PH.D.
City of Washington
)) ss:
District of Columbia )
I, Thomas B.
- Cochran, Ph.D.,
hereby depose and say:
I have examined the NRDC Motion for Summary Disposition with Respect to NRDC Contention #4.
The facts contained therein are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge.
I have examined the following documents to determine the adequacy of the NRC Staff and the Applicant's ef forts to meet the "as 1cw as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) requirement as it pertains to consideration of alternative means of managing Oconee spent reactor fuel.
a.
March 9, 1978 - Letter to Dr. Clifford V.
Smith, Director, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC, from William O.
Parker, Jr.,
Duke Power Co.,
re: Special Nuclear Material License Number SNM-1773 - Application for License to Store Oconee Nuclear Station Fuel at McGuire Nuclear Station; and attached Information Supporting Storage of Oconee Spent Fuel at McGuire.
2281 111
2 b.
Environmental Impact Appraisal related to Spent Fuel Storage of Oconee Spent Fuel at McGuire -
December 1978.
c.
February 2, 1979, letter to Harold R.
Denton, Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, from William O.
- Parker, Jr.,
Duke Power Co.,
re: Oconee Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-269, 270, and attached Proposed Technical Specification Revision.
d.
Applicant's Answer to NRDC Interrogatories to Applicant, March 27, 1979.
e.
Applicant's Response to NRDC Request for Admissions, April 17, 1979.
f.
NRC Staff Response to NRDC Request to Applicant and Staff for Admiraions, April 17, 1979 (with new page 6); and NRC Staff Response to NRDC Request to Applicant and Staff for Admissions 9-12, April 18, 1979.
I will comment briefly on each of these:
a.
Application by Duke Power Company to transship and store Oconee spent fuel at McGuire The attachment, "Information Supporting Storage of Oconee Spent Fuel at McGuire," March 9, 1978, contains a discussion of ALARA at p.
9-1.
The essence of this discussion is that (p. 9-1):
Operational ALARA policy statements are formulated at the corporate staff level in the Steam Production Department through the issuance of the System Health physics
. Manual and are implemented at each nuclear plant by means of procedures.
These state-ments and procedures are consistent with the intent of Section C.4 of Regulatory Guides 8.8 and 8.10.
Personnel and job exposure trends are reviewed by management at the 228i ii2
3 plant and in the general office, and appropriate action is taken as necessary.
Summary reports of occupation exposure are provided that:
(a) describe problem areas where high radiation doses are encountered; (b) identify which work group is accumulating the highest doses; and (c) make recommendations for changes in operating maintenance, and inspection proced-ures or (d) make recommendations for modifica-tions to the plant as appropriate to reduce doses.
. There is obviously nothing in the policy statements or Regulatory Guides 8.8 and 8.10 in the way of comparative assess-ments of alternative fuel management schemes, e.g.,
reracking by reducing the spacing, use of poisoned racks, pin packing, use of other reactor pools, to insure that ALARA is met.
The discussion here focusses instead on how the management insures that good health physics practices are implemented.
b.
Environmental Impact Appraisal, December 1978 This report considers only two methods for expanding the spent fuel storage capacity of Oconee:
physical expansion of the pool and reracking with closer spacing.
There is no comparative analysis of the costs, including health risks from radiation exposure, of the various fuel management alternatives, only a brief statement that (p. 53):
The applicant has estimated that the cost of reracking of the spent fuel pool serving Unit 1 and 2 will be $6,000 per fuel assumbly and the radiation dose to
- the~ work force to be 150 man-rem.
To insure that ALARA is met, at a minimum one would have to identify the full costs -- economic and social (health risks) --
of each alternative and compare these, with due consideration 2281 113
4 given to the sensitivity of the results to uncertainties in the input parameters and assumptions.
This is not done in this document.
c.
Proposed Technical Specification Revision, February 2, 1979,
" Units 1 and 2 Information in Support of Spent Fuel Pool Modification," contains a Radiological Evalua-tion of Anticipated Exposures During Re-Racking.
Personnel dose rates are given along with one cumulative dose commitment associated with reracking (p. 5-4 and Table 5.2-1), but no comparative analysis with alternative fuel management approaches is given as would b2 needed if ALARA considerations were properly addressed.
d.
Applicant's Answer to NRDC Interrogatories, March 27, 1979.
The response to Interrogatory 10 contains a discussion of the feasibility of expanding the spent fuel storage capacity at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3.
However, there is no reference to ALARA considerations given here.
On page 3 there is reference to neutron absorbing (poison) racks, followed by the statement:
This type of reracking could not be used at Oconee 3 at this time due to the fact that it is essentially full of spent fuel and would not allow underwater divers room
. to operate in safety.
The neutron absorbing racks were decided against in this latest proposed reracking of the Oconee 1 and 2 pool due to scheduling problems.
- Duke, in talking with rack manufacturers, dis-covered that poison racks would require two to five months longer lead times.
2281 114
5 Poison rack usage for the McGuire 1 pool has not been planned because transshipment is considered the best means for handling the spent fuel until either reprocessing and/or government waste storage facilities are made available.
McGuire Unit 2's racks have not yet been installed.
Additional storage capacity at this pool is under consideration.
There is no comparative analysis referred to here that demon-strates that ALARA was met.
At Oconee 1 and 2, for example, there is only the reference to " scheduling problems."
e.
Applicant's Response to NRDC Request for Admissions, April 17, 1979.
There is nothing in the way of a detailed comparison of total costs (direct economic and health effects) as would be required for an ALARA determination relative to the spent fuel management alternatives in the Applicant's response, nor is there any reference to such a detailed comparison.
f.
NRC Staff Responses to NRDC Request for Admissions, April 17 and 18, 1979.
The Staff in response to NRDC's request for admission 5 addresses the direct economic costs (capital expenditures) of expanding existing spent fuel capacity at Oconee or building new capacity compared to shipping spent fuel from Oconee to McGuire.
Without addressing the accuracy of the results reported here, I simply note that there is no consideration given to the social costs (health risks) and the results reported (comparisons of the capital expenditures) are not-supported by 2281 115
6 any detailed calculations.
Such a detailed comparison of the total costs (capital expenditures and health ef fects) of the spent fuel management alternatives identified in the nation for Summary Disposition filed herewith would have to be made.
Furthermore, consideration would have to be given to the fact that it would be less expensive to modify the McGuire spent fuel pool prior to October 1980 (Staff's Admission 6).
- Also, with respect to the health effects, the type of specific calcu-lations of total worker exposure comparing the alternative sequences which the Staff admits haven't been done (Admission 7) would have to be done before ALARA could be determined with respect to alternative spent fue l management schemes.
The Staff's response to Admission 8 addresses worker exposure during handling operations and during loading and unloading but fails to consider exposure during transportation, a consideration which would be necessary in an ALARA determina-tion with respect to the alternative spent fuel management schemes.
2281 116
7 In summary, in all of the above documents, there is nothing approaching what would be required for a considered ALARA determination relative to the spent fuel management alternatives identified in the NRDC Motion for Summary Disposition With Respect to NRDC Contention #4.
All facts contained in the above statement are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
W Thomas B.
Cochran, Ph.D.
Signed and sworn to before me this 1st day of May 1979.
')
I J
1
& & d W Uj 2281 117 N6tary Public'
os \\ ~ < / q, s
'5 31' 0E MAY 3 WSP N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
C$w,3 M
@a yW 4
i N
In The Matter Of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
) Docket No. 70-2623
)
(Amendment to Operating License SNM-1773 )
for Oconee Spent Fuel Transportation and )
Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACT NOT IN DISPUTE 1.
The documents identified on pages 1 and 2 of the Affidavit of Thomas B.
- Cochran, Ph.D.,
contain or identify all of the written analyses by the Staff and the licensee of worker exposures, economic costs and technological and other feasibility of alternatives to the proposed action as compared to the proposed action.
Respectfully submitted,
,O.
j(o r<,,n YLn&k B'
t Anthony Zi Roisman Natural Res'ources Defense Council 917-15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202)737-5000 Dated:
May 1, 1979 2281 118
'%3
/
ojf[$
4' psAt 3
g*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA e
Q,a *[**
g/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
'Q+
%~'
b t
i c
(b i
In The Matter Of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-2623
)
(Amendment to Operating License SNM-1773 )
for Oconee Spent Fuel Transportation and )
Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRDC MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION WITH RESPECT TO NRDC CONTENTION #4 and AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS B. COCHRAN, PH.D.,
and NRDC STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACT NOT IN DISPUTE were mailed today, May 1,
- 1979, to everyone on the attached service list.
L%
k b%V Anthony Z.
Roisman 2281 l19
- Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Cadet H.
Hand, Jr., Director Bodega Marine Laboratory Post Office Box 247 Bodega Bay, California 94923 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 James Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Joseph B.
- Knotts, Jr.,
Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman 1200 17th Street, N.W, Washington, D.C.
20036
- Richard K.
Hoefling, Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention:
Docketing and Service Section Donald R.
Belk Safe Energy Alliance 4937 Lebanon Drive Charlotte, N.C.
28210 Richard P.
Wilson Assistant Attorney General 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Shelley Blum, Esq.
418 Law Building 730 East Trade Street 2281 120 Charlotte,- North Carolina 28202 Jesse L.
Riley Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place Charlotte, N.C.
28207
Brenda Best Carolina Action 305 East Chapel Hill Street Durham, North Carolina 27702 Chuck Gaddy NC PIRG Davidson College Davidson, North Carolina 28036 William Larry Porter Associate General Counsel Duke Power Company 422 S.
Church Street Charlotte, N.C.
28242 2281 121
.