ML19260A708
| ML19260A708 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1979 |
| From: | Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912030113 | |
| Download: ML19260A708 (10) | |
Text
YRC PrmRC nemgp 11/05/79 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ~ ~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
\\
In the Matter of
)
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE Docket No. 50-409
)
(SFPLicenseAmendment)
(Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor)
)
/
NRC STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT-AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON
[
THE BOARD QUESTION OF THE NEED FOR POWER FROM THE LACROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR FOR THREE YEARS BALANCED AGAINST THE NEGLIGIBLE ENVIRONMENIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATION DESCRIBED IN THE NRC STAFF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL Preliminary Statement Tne NRC Staff hereby adopts Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of baw on the need for LACBWR submitted October 16, 1979, with the following exceptions and modifications.
Before Finding No. 1, insert the following:
Introduction On May 25, 1978, the Comiission published notice in the Federal Register, 43 FR 22462 that the Comission was considering issuance of an amendment to the provisional operating license of Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) which would allow modification of the spent fuel storage pool at the Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) at Genoa, Wisconsin, and that an opportunity for 1456 017 7 7012030
2_
intervention and hearing was being p-avided for these making a sufficient showing of interest in the proceeding. Subsequently the Coulee Region Energy Coalition (CREC) petitioned to intervene and requested a hearing. The petitioners were admitted as parties and a notice of future evidentiary hearing was published on August 4, 1978 (43 FR 34564). The Intervenor (CREC) submitted contentions, five of which were admitted for litigation. The Staff and the Applicant submitted motions for Sumury Disposition of all the contentions and we granted the motions on Sep amber 21, 1979, at the prehearing conference. Prehearing Conference Tr.
393, 417.
Although no contentions submitted by Intervenor CREC remained for hearing, we believed that the Applicant and Staff should present a cost-benefit analysis on the need for power from the Lacrosse plant for the three years until the Staff Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) review is complete, weighed against the quantitative analysi, of the Staff Environmental Impr.ct Appraisal (EIA) of the proposed amendment, anu the economic costs involved.
The EIA sets forth all environmental costs steming directly from the proposed amendment.
It does not set forth any costs of continued operation of LACBWR.
Operational costs stem from the authorizations issued previously, so that they are not the subject of this amendment.
~
In 1969 a provisional operating authorization (DPRA-5) was issued to DPC as operator of LACBWR by the owner, the Atomic' Energy Commission.
In 1973, ownership 1456 018 was transferred to DPC and a provisional operating license (POL) issued (DPR-45).
In 1974 DPC applied for a full-term license (FTOL). This application has been unde going Staff review of safety and environmental considerations. A draft environmental statement (des) for LACBWR was issued in June 1976, and the final environmental statement (FES) is scheduled for issuance in 1980.
A notice of hearing concerning the FTOL was published after CREC petitioned for and was granted a request for hearing and intervention in the proceeding. One of the contentions submitted by CREC in the FTC. proceeding concerns the need for power from the LACBWR facility.
Add to Finding No. 5 dnd generated 9.3% of total system power during August,1979 (Panel testimony,
- p. 11).
Add to Finding No. 7 260 MW of which is contracted for sale to Northern States Power Co. (Tr. 656) and cannot serve as replacement power for LACBWR (Tr. 790).
Add to Finding No. 9 The only controverting evidence was a Wisconsin Publ': Service Comission finding referenced during cross-examination which showed a 4% growth rate in western Wisconsin (Tr. 512-515). But DPC's system serves parts of Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois, as well as western Wisconsin. (App. testimony, p. 2, foll. Tr. 442.)
1456 019
. Add to Finding No. 12 and this.ugirement would not change with LACBWR off line. (Tr. 786,832.)
Add to Finding No.17 This figure was calculated on the basis of average steam fuel costs at other DPC plants.
(Tr. 515).
Fuel costs at LACBWR are 7.966 mills /KWH and cual costs are 2.866 mills /KWH. (Panel testimony, p. 11.)
Add to Finding No. 20 MAPP and MARCA project winter reserves in the 1980-1982 period providing a market for the purchase of this power. (Tr. 509. )
Add to Finding No. 22 Costs of power from MAPP are projected to increase in the years to come due to rising constr ction costs. (Tr. 510-511.)
Add to Finding No. 26 whereas the cost of producing power at LACBWR in August,1979 was 26.382 mills per KWH (Panel testimony, p.11).
Modify Findina No. 27 as follows:
Peaking power can be purchased only on a six-month basis, and is considerably more expensive than economy energy, as is replacement power. (Tr. 785,787.)
Add to Finding No. 33 according to MAPP service schedule.
1456 020
. Add to Findina No. 38 as well as providing potential for revenue from excess capacity (Panel testimony,
- p. 13).
Add to Findina No. 46 Excess capacity from LACBWR provides emergency power or displacement of fossil-fueled power. (Panel testimony, p.10.)
Add to Findina No. 61 and no facilities exist to allow purchase of available power from eastern Wisconsin utilities. (Tr. 795-798.)
Add to Finding No. 76 Although the Applicant's witnesses could not directly verify the accuracy of the computation of the nut'aar fuel costs saved, these costs were the costs set out in the books of the Applicant kept in accord with Rural Electric Administration requirements.
(Tr. 676-679, 773-776).
Add to Finding No. 77 The Intervenor extensively cross-examined on the validity of the allocation of such overhead costs as taxes and insurance to LACBWR in the event LACBWR was shut down for three years. However, Intervenor failed to show that even if these overhead costs were substantially reduced, there would be any material change.in the. economic advantages of keeping LACBWR in operation in comparison i'
to closing that facility and obtaining power elsewhere (Panel Testimony, Exh. 3) (Tr. 672).
I 1456 021
Add to Finding No. 79 (first sentence) since NRC regulations would require the retention of the operating staff (Shea, p. 2),
f Add
- 96. A conservative estimate of the only significant additional gaseous release which might result from the completely filled spent fuel pool after modification is 20 curies per year of Krypton-85. This would result in an additional body dose of less than 0.001 mrem / year at the site boundary. (Staff EIS, p. 5.)
Present Krypton-85 releases are 10 Ci/yr.(DES, p. 3-17.)
- 97. A conservative estimate of increased solid radwaste due to the modificatinn would be less than 0.6% (12 cubic feet) and there may be no increase in solid radwaste. (EIA, p. 6.) Present radwaste removed is about 320 cubic feet annually. (DES, p. 3-16. )
- 98. The present spent fuel racks to be removed will amount to about 800 cubic feet of solid low-level radwaste. This will amount to an increase of less than 1% of the plant's total lifetime waste. (EIA, pp. 6-7.)
- 99. The increase in liquid releases of radionuclides into the Mississippi River due to pool leakage could increase by 1% of total plant releases. (EIA,
- p. 7. ) Present liquid releases are 86.7 Ci/yr. (DES, p. 3-13.)
100. There will be no increased releases in the event of a fuel handling accident due to the increased amount of spent fuel in the pool. (EIA, p. 8.)
1456 022
101. Even if impacts of plant operation for three years were considered in relation to the proposed amendment, there would be no significant impact on the environment.
DES, 55. Normal operational releases are an extremely I
small increase in background radiation (65.5.1); the dose from the facility to the integrated population is less than one man-rem / year (65.5.1.4);
heat dissipation is 13' - 26' AT; no adverse effects have been observed on terrestrial or aquatic biota (95.6.1 and 55.6.2); water quality standards are met (55.4.and 55.6.2); and there are no adverse impacts by land or water use (5E5.1, 5.2).
102. The fuel failure problem which reduced power production in past years has been alleviated. (Tr. 664-668.)
Conclusions of Law Insert the following as paragraphs 1-6 and renumber Applicant's paragraphs 1-4 as paragraphs 7-10.
1.
There is a need for power from the LACBWR plant for the three years until the Safety Evaluation Program review is complete (at which time the full-term license will be considered).
2.
The environmental impact of the spent fuel pool modification will be insignificant.
I 1456 023
.. 3.
The economic costs of plant shutdown for three years would be significant.
4.
The benefit of the power produced by LACBWR in the next three years far outweighs the environmental impact of the spent fuel pool modification, and three years of operation.
5.
Because the spent fuel pool modification will not significantly impact the environment either by the modification itself or by allowing continued plant operation, there is no sigrificant environmental question raised by the spent fuel pool modification and no cost-benefit analysis of plant operation need be considered. Therefore, no jurisdiction under the National Invironmental Policy Act to consider the continued operation of LACBWR existed in this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
/
}
Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of November,1979
~
1456 024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE Docket No. 50-409 (La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor)
)
(SFP License Amendment)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON THE BOARD QUESTION OF THE NEED FOR POWER FROM THE LACROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR FOR THREE YEARS BALANCED AGAINST THE NEGLIGIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATION DESCPIBED IN THE NRC STAFF ENVIRON-MENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL" in the above-captioned oroceedino have peen served on the following by deposit in the United States pail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through' deposit in the' Nuclear Regulatory Commission's...
'.. internal mail system, this 5th day of November,1979:
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman
- Robert H. Owen, Jr., Esq.
~
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 2327 Willard Avenue Panel Madison, Wisconsin 537nA U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coamission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. George C. Anderson
- 0. S. Hiestand, Esq.
Department of Oceanography Kevin Gallen, Esq.
University of Washington Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Seattle, Washington 98195 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Mr. Ralph S. Decker Route 4, Box 190D Fritz Schubert, Esq.
Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Staff Attorney Dairyland Power Cooperative 2615 East Ave., South George R. Nygaard La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 Mark Burmaster Anne K. Morse Atomic Safety and Licensing Coulee Region Energy Coalition Appeal Board
- P.O. Box 1583 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 Washington, D. C.
20555 Frank Linder Atomic Safety snd Licensing General Manager Board Panel
- Dairyland Power Cooperative U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2615 East Ave., South Washington, D. C.
20555 La Cro,sse, Wisconsin 54601 1456 025 W
'W
I
-i -
?
Docketing and lervice Section*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff 9
4
=
1456 026
.