ML19261C657
| ML19261C657 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1979 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903280070 | |
| Download: ML19261C657 (4) | |
Text
...
NRO PUBLIU D00VAENT ROOM UNITED STAES OF AMERICA NUCIEAR REGULATORY COMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
DWE POWER CatfANY
)
Docket No. 70-2623
)
(License Ammdmmt for Transportation )
4 and Storage of Oconee Spent Fuel at
)
o McGuire Nuclear Station):
)
@c# 9g 6
N
'l ORDER REGARDEG COMENTIGS OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL c@@
(March 16,1979) h 4
On March 13, 1979, the Licensing Board held a conference with counsel concerning the contentions of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). After hearing frm counsel representing the Duke Power Company (Applicant) as well as the Staff and NRDC, the following contentions of NRDC were held to be ndmissible. The underlying reasoning of the Board and the parties is reflected in the transcript of the conference with
~
counsel and will not be repeated here, although appropriate transcript citations follow each contention and are incorporated by reference.
Contention 1.
The proposed action is a step in a proposed program to handle the shortage of spent fuel storage space by shipping and storing spent fuel away frcm the reactor where it ws generated. The proposed action has no independent value in solving the spent fuel storage problen and is inherently prenised on the near-term construction of an interim away-from-reactor storage facility. The proposed action, if taken, will bias the final decision on whether to approve the program by foreclosing at-reactor options at both Oconee and McGuire. The 790328 0 0 7 0
I. proposed action is therefore inconsistent with the conditions 1 and 2 laid down by the NRC in pimulgating the criteria for approval of interim spent fuel storage.
(40 Fed. Reg. 42801) Thus, the proposed action cannot be acted upon until empletion of impact statements on the proposed program now being conducted by DOE (Storage of U. S. Spent Power Reactor Fuel (DOE /EIS-0015-D) August 1978, and Supplement, Decenber 1978; Storage of Foreign Spent Power Reactor Fuel (DOE /EIS-0040-D) December 1978; Preliminary Estimates of the Charge for Spent-Fuel Storage and Disposal Services (DGE/ET-0055) July 1978; Charge for Spent Fuel Storage (DOE /EIS-0041-D) December 1978) and NRC (Draft Generic Environmental Impact State-ment on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel (NUREG-0404)).
(Tr. 7-48)
Contention 2.
The proposed action is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of tha human envi2wce_ct and cannot be acted upon until preparation of a final environmental impact statenst.
(Tr. 48-60)
Contention 3.
The following alternatives to the proposed action have not been adequately considered:
a.
The alternative of using Oconee as a last-on, first-off, base-loaded plant to reduce spent fuel discharge requirenents is not considered.
b.
The alleged economic cost of increased purchases of power if Oconee is shut down is speculative because
4 there is insufficient information to justify the conclusion.
c.
There are no technological or economic disadvantages to expanding spent fuel pool capacity at Oconee if it is assumed that all Oconee spent fuel will be stored there until it is shipped to a legally approved perma-nent storage facility for nuclear wastes. This option will reduce the risks of routine, accidental and intentional (sabotage) releases of radioactivity during transportation.
d.
Applicant has not fully utilized all of the potential it has to con: pact spent fuel in existing pools at Oconee and has not provided adequate justification for the assertion that storage expansion at Oconee Units 1 and 2 is not viable.
(Tr. 60-77)
Contention 4.
The proposed action increases the exposure to rndinHon of workers and the general public beyond what is AIEA.
a.
AIRA can be achieved by on-site expansion of spent fuel pool storage capacity at Oconee, including building another spent fuel pool.
b.
The residual health risks which remain even if the present NRC regulations on exposures to workers are met are major costs of the proposed action which tip the balance against the proposed action.
(Tr. 77-85)
~
. Contention 5.
Applicant overstates the need for action at this time by using the one-core discharge capacity reserve standard as if it were a requirment where in fact it is not a requirment of NRC regulations.
a.
Either Applicant should be bound to cmply with the one-core discharge capacity standard or it should have to d eonstrate on a cost / benefit basis that holding that capability is more valuable than the costs of shipnent off-site of one core of spmt fuel.
(Tr.85-127)
Contention 6.
Shipment of spent fuel fran Oconee to McGuire will be vulnerable to sabotage or other malevolent acts and this represents a serious risk.
(Tr.127-136)
Contention 7 was withdrawn by NRDC at the conference (Tr.136).
Contentions 1-6 as set forth above are admitted as NRDC contentions in this proceeding.
FOR THE A1U4IC SAFEIY AND LICENSING BGL@
/f({$9{ :th 5YG r
" Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 16th day of March 1979.
.